Mar 06
Religulous
“Unfortunately before man figured out how to be rational or peaceful, he figured out how to make nuclear weapons”. As soon as I heard this line Bill Maher instantly became one of my favorite public figures. I have never seen a movie or documentary so absolutely on point that so many people will certainly disagree with. Many people that argue against religion start from a point of saying that religious people must be dumb to believe what they do. The reason Maher’s documentary is so powerful and scary is because he points out that this clearly is not the case. Incredibly smart and capable people in all other walks of life believe they are drinking the blood of a 2000 year old being on Sunday and Maher has to set out to try find how this is possible. He made so many excellent points that I am sad I can’t blog about all of them but I have chosen a few that resonate with me.
I have been criticized for being arrogant about my atheist viewpoint. I have always found this curious since all I am saying is that I really just don’t think any of those impossible stories are true. Maher puts it far better. “The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions, is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble and that is what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.” I think he’s totally right that those who DO believe are the arrogant ones. They are the ones who think they have answers to questions that are unanswerable.
The first thing I noticed from the movie is how many people get deeply offended when Maher examines their faith. He asks them simple questions about all the contradictions in their beliefs and many can’t handle it. I personally have been told many times that I offend people by simply asking why they believe what they do and they respond that you should not question someone’s faith. Maher asks the plain and simple question: Why in our society is faith considered a good thing? All faith means is believing something with no proper cause. This opens the door to all sorts of evil, much of which we have seen throughout history and also many unspeakable things we haven’t seen yet that can easily result from enough people having “faith” in enough crazy things. As Maher eloquently puts it, “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.”
Maher briefly brings up Scientology and everyone around him just laughs. The tacit understanding is, “well those people are truly nuts”. He talks about how they believe in all these sci-fi type stories from long ago. Then Maher says, “Yea those guys are really crazy, but all the other relgions, they are completely rational…” and the room goes silent. The fact of the matter is, the stories from the bible are comparable to fairy tales. At one point Maher asks a believer, if as a child you were told the story of Jack and the beanstalk as a religious teaching and Jonah and the whale as a fairy tale, would you believe that Jack was true? This comparison once again seems obvious to me but will probably be scoffed at by those who have “faith”
Many people choose to ignore things from their religion that they do not like. Maher interviewed Muslims and asked about all of the violent teachings of the Qur’an. They all claimed that there were no such teachings while he simultaneously put the lines up on the screen. Many who claim to be religious are not even true believers. They do it just on the possibility that the afterlife is real so that they will be sent to heaven. A frequent question that Maher gets asked (and I’ve been asked before) is “what if you’re wrong, then you’ll be sorry”…good logical point…
Maher points out how it’s funny that god always talks to people in private, you would think if he has something to say he would say it to everyone, but he always chooses a specific person to privately hear him and then they go and preach to the world.
Maher shows how the story of Jesus is a carbon copy of stories from other cultures that predated it. Horus was born Dec 25th, was a champion of the poor, was a carpenter, was crucified, was resurrected etc. Yet somehow whoever happened to write about Jesus really got their story to stick so that has become “fact” to so many people. It never occurs to religious people that thousands of years ago there was probably just as much corruption as their is now so maybe people made these religious fairy tales up to control others. This certainly would explain the violent history of religious zealots torturing and killing anyone who dare not believe as they do.
Many people I know, even close friends are fairly religious and I have been told that I have no right to ask them questions about their beliefs. They are not accountable to me. This is true. I would think however that these otherwise moral and logical people would want to be accountable to themselves. As Maher points out, if they were a part of a social club that had as much history of murder, rape, bigotry, hatred and torture as nearly every major religion, they would be shunned for these beliefs (and rightly so). However since it is a part of their “faith” they are a beyond reproach.
The idea that the USA is a christian nation is absurd. Most of the founding fathers were vehemently against religion. Ben Franklin said quite rightly that lighthouses are of more use than churches and Thomas Jefferson created his own bible that had all the moral teachings of Jesus free of the clearly false magical razzle dazzle.
The funniest moment is when Maher interviews Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas. He questions him about evolution and Pryor says he believes in the story of Adam and Eve and goes on at some length about faith. Maher says something to the effect of, “You are a United States senator, one of the few people with real real power in this country and it worries me that you believe in talking snakes” To which Pryor very proudly replies, “You don’t have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate”
Finally Maher makes a spectacular point that I have never thought of before. Religion needs to die or humanity will. In a day and age where big chunks of the world can be wiped out with one bomb, having leaders who believe in children’s tales from the bronze age (when people still believed the world was flat, and wounds were cured by spitting on them) is a serious detriment to the world. These leaders get their power from those they govern and that is why each and every person of “faith” represents someone who is dangerous to society. They put people in charge who answer to nothing rational, logical or peaceful. He begs, as do I, that “Rational people, anti-religious, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.”
There are so many great quotes that I just can’t stop so I will leave you with this:
“The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people – by irrationalists – by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken.”
March 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I am hardcore conservative ( not relig conservative ) and llove the likes of limbaugh and hannity etc…and maher Is the ONLY liberal talk show host that I enjoy…and while I agree that the world has seen lots of bad in the name of religion , I do belive that those were carried out my the extremists ….and I think religion does a lot of good , especially in the charity and healthcare arena
March 6th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Such a great blog entry. I am going to go watch this movie right now.
One thing i will say about religion is – only from my own personal experience – those who are quite religious seem to be happier – at least on the exterior – than atheists. All the atheists I know (including myself) have really hard and sometimes dark times trying to grapple with the big questions in their head. (the meaning of life, whats the point, etc).
This leads me to believe that agnosticism is the way to go. God? No god? I really don’t give a shit! I’m just going to live my life and maximimize utility.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Nice blog. True/interesting points, Papa.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
It’s amazing how easy it is to cogently argue that believers are delusional idiots when interviewing the marginal members of the religion who haven’t examined their faith and the reasons for their belief. Maher would most likely be torn to shreds if he took his case up against a prominent Christian philosopher such as Richard Swinburne or Alvin Plantinga, or one of their Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. counterparts. This is obviously not a proof that Maher is wrong, simply that his slick documentary marketing would play out much differently if he chose to spar with competent opponents.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
A couple things:
I think only a very very small minority of Christians actually believe in all the stories of the bible. Most people accept that they are stories told for a purpose, not to be taken literally. Acting that most Christians and other religous ppl actually believe these stories is very ignorant.
One other thing, and I mean this seriously. If there is no God, and no afterlife, then what is the point of caring about the best way to keep humanity going. Once you die, you die for good and there is nothing else, so what do you care what happens after your death. Nothing matters at this point because you would be dead. I know this might sound sort of stupid but I mean it as a real point. I suppose you would never ever buy life insurance regardless if you had a family to support. Right? I know this might seem like a different point but I just thought about it. No athiest should find any joy in funding an account that will only pay off if you die. What do you care about how those left behind will be taken care of if once you die, there’s nothing else. Seems like a waste of money.
I also want to agree with an above point about agnostics possibly being the happiest.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Joseph, your major point is so silly that I don’t really know why I am responding to it, but some people care about the future of humanity and those they love regardless of a personal stake in it. I honestly feel sorry that you cannot see or feel that.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Joseph, I also agree that your point was just dumb. I am an atheist but I still have a deep down urge to do what is right. I also want my family to be taken care of if I die because I care about them, not because I plan on seeing them in the after life. I saw Religulous in the theater right when it came out and I am renting it to watch with my family who gets embarrassed when I say I do not believe in God. Religion is was used to control and to make sense of many things man could not explain. Today science can explain many of those questions and will continue to solve the unknown. I hope with continued education and science people will realize their isn’t any fairy tale God and start believing in humanity.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Good blog cow, I want to go see this movie now.
I also agree that religion was largely invented due to human’s inability to explain many things they were observing along with the need for leaders to be able to control the people. I think anyone who believes the bible literally is a delusional and insane individual. Just the idea that the earth is a few thousand years old is possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard — not to mention things like talking animals.
However, I believe that religion does do SOME good for SOME people. Mainly people who somehow believe that being law-abiding is going to lead them to heaven. My response: whatever you’ve gotta believe in order to keep yourself in check is cool with me. The problem is that religion has a negative effect on too many people. I believe the overall effect of religion on society is negative and the world would be better off without any religions (although I question whether the majority of humans are capable of getting along without it — there is a reason why it has survived for so long despite being a big collection of impossible claims and “fairy tales”).
March 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Nat, exactly what I am saying man. People use to believe in a God for everything. How does it rain, must be a rain god, how does sun shine, must be a sun god. I also agree that God or religion can help people with morals, but more than that I think it can help people cope. It helps some people stay strong and that is important. Yes, it mainly causes people to be ignorant dumb ass’s though and will end the world if things don’t change.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Unlike many of the commenters, I will not see the movie, but this post is incredibly amusing. I agree with all the major points. Like you, inconsistencies in people’s lives baffle me. For example, how can someone whose career is based in empiricism, say, a nuclear scientist, believe that the planet Earth is only 6000 years old.
However, I will say one this. If I live to see the day where someone builds a giant ark and fills it with two of every animal in a flood that covers the Earth, then I will become a religious believer. I also think if we were to find someone who could walk on water and turn water into wine, our society would not let him be, but we would seize him like E.T. and do all sorts of scientific experiments on him.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Steve,
Following the entertaining read of your most recent blog entry and as a consequence to your lack of understanding, alas I am here to guide you along.. please read on…
Arguments for Atheism;
In addition to the various arguments for God’s existence, there are a number of arguments against it. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of argument for atheism: a priori and a posteriori.
A priori arguments for atheism claim that there is some logical contradiction in the theistic conception of God, and so that it is impossible for such a being to exist.
A posteriori arguments for atheism claim that the world is other than it would be if God existed, and so conclude from it that there cannot be a God.
The most weighty of the arguments against God’s existence is an a posteriori argument: the problem of evil. Of all the atheistic arguments, this is the one that has been around for longest, that has had the most words written about it, and that draws the most diverse responses from Christians.
In brief, the problem is that the traditional conception of God implies that if God exists then he knows how to, wants to, and is able to prevent all suffering. If such a God existed, though, then we would expect him to prevent all suffering. Suffering, though, is a familiar part of the world around us; it has not been prevented. There is, therefore, the argument concludes, no such God.
Other arguments for atheism are of the second kind, claiming that the concept of God is incoherent, that there are logical problems with the existence of such a being, and that God therefore cannot exist.
Arguments for God’s Existence;
Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus is the philosophical arguments—the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument.
Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God: the ontological argument, for instance, is an argument for the existence of a perfect being; the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of an eternal Creator; the argument from design is an argument for the existence of Creator with a special interest in humanity; the moral argument is an argument for a moral authority.
Each of the arguments, if successful, then, so supports a specific religion to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.
The Ontological Argument;
The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher René Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist.
The First Cause Argument;
The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.
The Argument from Design;
The third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called “the teleological argument”. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered.
The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.
The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity.
The Moral Argument;
The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws.
Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?
To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority.
The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.
Summary;
Together, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.
Yawn…..
March 9th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Whatever article or wikipedia entry you copy pasted approaches atheism all wrong.
Why should atheists have to prove or explain their belief that there is no god? Occam’s razor dog. The burden of proof lies on the believers not the non-believers.
“The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity”
So the writer is saying that the vast majority of the possible universes (given the arrogant and obviously thinly-supported assumption that there is only one universe) wouldn’t allow for even ONE of quadrillions of planets to have life? Maybe the writer should take some stat 101 after they finish their bullshit 501 and copy/paste 202 courses.
Furthermore, the belief in god is one thing, the belief in organized religion is a completely different thing and is a huge leap that the article seems to make all too easily.
“Together, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.”
March 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Papa,
Firstly, I think you should book yourself in for some anger management classes, It’s evident that you have some real issues that require addressing (rather urgently) judging by the tone of your response. With that said I bare no ill will toward you, infact I welcome your comments.
Now, nobody has said that Atheist’s have to prove anything, I think It was you that highlighted before that many ‘believer’s’ appear to be much more content with the faith that they follow as opposed to the ‘Non believers’ I guess it’s the satisfaction that they feel within their own minds, that when they pass on, they are off to a beautiful place.
There is no real way to prove existence, nor is there a way to prove Non existence, however the ‘thinly supported evidence’ that I kindly wrote is more compelling than any argument’s that have been penned on this subject.
I must admit to you Papa, I chuckled to myself when you wrote the sentence “Whatever article or wikipedia entry you copy pasted approaches atheism all wrong”. If I am to be open with you, when I read Steve’s newest posting I had no intention of writing anything, but some mystical feeling overcame me and the words just flew out of my fingers… I guess another case of divine intervention eh?
Just for the record, I am actually agnositc, but I do try and put over both sides of the arguement. An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I’m glad your clarified your position. The anger you are seeing is not there, I was a little put off by your arrogant tone and the concealing of your actual viewpoint.
Especially considering you copy pasted all this stuff from
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
Game set match
March 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Papa,
Your missing the point, I have not said I wrote the intial email, my view point is set out within the 2nd email.
But If you feel you have won – which judging by your email it means a great deal to, your a better being than me.
Feel the love.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Mcwin, you took an arrogant tone and made terrible arguments, then when someone points it out you just back off of them and obfuscate the truth. Standard practice from those that argue the rationality of religion.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Now lets start again, is it Steve or Papa or both?
The points made within the inital posting are all valid, the points made within the second email carry even more weight. Terrible arguments? I don’t think that sentence warrants a response Steve. How can you come to that conclusion, I’m at a loss?
I suppose that’s what discussions are all about though eh?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Steve,
Following the entertaining read of your most recent blog entry and as a consequence to your lack of understanding, alas I am here to guide you along.. please read on…
just go ahead and re-read that opening to your first post. How do you think people are going to respond to you when you talk like that?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
and you implied in almost every post until caught that you were writing that stuff.
for example: There is no real way to prove existence, nor is there a way to prove Non existence, however the ‘thinly supported evidence’ that I KINDLY WROTE is more compelling than any argument’s that have been penned on this subject.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Papa,
I think ‘Implied’ is the operative word here, construe it how you may. I’m really starting to doubt the level of intelligent conversation between me and you now? I kindly wrote an email and posted it on this blog, albeit the large majority of it was taken from the web, do you honestly think anyone would sit and write an email the length of my initial one without taking extracts from the web?
Grow up and stop trying the “my daddy’s a police man” routine.
Sigh..
March 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Are you responding to me or papa? The point is you copy/pasted without giving thought to the argument you were making. As I said, standard for religious people, in fact it’s the essence of faith. Sad.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Just to clarify for those that didn’t click my link….
ALL of his post was from the web besides the opening arrogant paragraph which I quoted above and the “yawn” at the bottom.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Papa,
I think the original readers of this particular blog posting gave up several conversations back when you began acting like a freak.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
McWin,actually use some thought and try to understand your position. Don’t just copy and paste another persons thoughts. Here is an interesting point I one time heard someone make. Lots of people when they beat cancer claim it was a miracle of God and that God took the cancer away. How come god has never regrew and amputee’s limb? I am sure many amputees have prayed for their limbs back.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Are you serious McWin? I didn’t want to get involved but -
“I must admit to you Papa, I chuckled to myself when you wrote the sentence “Whatever article or wikipedia entry you copy pasted approaches atheism all wrong”. If I am to be open with you, when I read Steve’s newest posting I had no intention of writing anything, but some mystical feeling overcame me and the words just flew out of my fingers… I guess another case of divine intervention eh?”
You clearly are implying you wrote it yourself. Enough said.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Majical,
I love those opening lines “I don’t want to get involved, but..” If you don’t want to get involved then why the f comment?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Overall, I take issue with Steve’s arrogant tone in much of his post: namely, the “if people don’t see why this point im making is right, they are clearly wrong”. That being said, McWin, you keep digging yourself a bigger hole, and it is quite entertaining pre-sleep reading. You get called out left and right, and then try to make people forget by blatantly switching topics as fast as possible. Its the equivalent of a real-life argument where someone starts talking louder than the other person, hoping that will drown out their point.
But Steve, when you make comments such as “As I said, standard for religious people, in fact it’s the essence of faith” and “Standard practice from those that argue the rationality of religion”, you, too, come across as someone who should thusly be dismissed. When trying to “win” an argument, or prove a point, nothing turns people off quicker than the caustic, biting, “look at me, im so smart and thus everyone who disagrees with me must be crazy” approach. Sadly, you seem to do this often as well.
Not that anyone cares, but, as for my own personal opinion, I am not quite sure what I believe in terms of God, supernatural beings, religion in general, etc. As I get older, I lean more towards “anti” religion. But its arguments in the tone of Steve’s that make me disinclined to be lumped in with them.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Inconsequential,
When I use a derisive tone it is towards those who deserve it such as Mcwin. As you said, he got called out left and right and just ignored it. This has generally been my experience when arguing against religious people and it is so so frustrating. Therefore rather than get further frustrated, i just say “standard”. I’m sorry you take issue with this.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:05 am
great essay steve. it’s well written and makes a ton of good points. thanks for sharing..
would the world be better off without religion?
most of the terrible events in the last 100 years have been due to religion
wars/genocide/holocaust/terrorism.
while it has provided some good to a lot of people, namely poor people, it’s
led to some majorly terrible events. it’s also shocking when you hear crazy statements
from the vatican, in regards to the holocaust/abortion/evolution…the ideas are insane.
really makes you realize how out of touch these people are.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:12 am
steve- also check out the book “under the banner of heaven”
it’s really well written, and gives some great insight into the mormon religion. it’s truly crazy.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Steve,
Again you proved Inconsequentials point, the response to the posting made by Inconsequential was standard for you, switching attention from yourself and directing it at me by using McWin as a scapegoat! Lets be frank here – my posting was designed to create a bit of a stir, which of course it did.
Inconsequential glad you enjoyed the pre-bed time reading, It was entertaining and as such I’m thinking of creating a ‘Stevebets’ fanbase website. which I’m confident would receive more hits than Roberto Duran (google him Papa).
Steve – why is it you use ’selective choice’ on which of my postings to display, once before, I remarked on how you tend to make postings on how you believe the world should revovle, only for it to be omitted, please! that was an accurate take on you, which is possibly why you didn’t post eh?
Greatful for your response – Steve.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Saying that humanity will die if religion doesn’t is retarded. But so is religion.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:45 am
Steve, I liked the entry and agree with most of what you had to say. There are so many great quotes from Religulous that it would take too long to address all of them here.
McWin, so much of what you wrote makes zero sense. In fact the majority of the entire paragraph is full of faulty conclusions reached through faulty logic and reasoning.
So you think because of the existence of evil and suffering in the world this leads someone to say to themselves “well there must not be a God after all because what kind of all-powerful omnipresent being would allow these things to exist if he had the power to end them whenever he wants”? A much simpler argument for atheism is that there are far too many religions who all basically believe they are right and all the others are wrong. In some cases the other “nonbelievers” are damned to hell for eternity.
An even simpler argument for atheism would be if God does in fact exist, prove it. For instance we know that gravity exists even though we can’t see or touch it. All religions were founded by man, and throughout history man has been corrupted by having power over his fellow men. Is there anyway to have greater power over a population of people than to have a “prophet” claim that the only way to “salvation” is to follow my teachings and you will have “everlasting life”?
All religions are more or less pretty ridiculous but the farther forward we move on the time line of the world, the more ridiculous the religions become. Joseph Smith was a criminal who was killed by a mob while in jail, but he was also apparently a “prophet” who spoke to God and founded Mormonism. His God even told him he could take many wives and that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Have you ever driven through Missouri? I have and paradise on Earth isn’t exactly what comes to mind. Mormons also believe that their special temple garments protect them from knives and fire amongst other things. I really hope that Mitt Romney or any other Mormon never holds a high public office again because if he truly believes in the tenets of Mormonism than his ability to use logic and reasoning can’t be trusted.
L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who wrote many fantastic tales about aliens and spacecraft. He too was also apparently a “prophet” who founded Scientology. The tenets of Scientology are based on his book “Dianetics”, which suspiciously reads exactly like “Battlefield Earth” and other sci-fi works of his. Maybe Stephen King and John Grisham are also prophets who will be starting religions in the near future.
You also state that because we have moral laws this proves the existence of God? So just because society is organized and not complete anarchy then there must be a God? Humans couldn’t have learned to live side-by-side in relative peace without the existence of a supreme being who they must be trying to emulate?
Religulous is a great documentary that everyone should see. The sad thing is that people who have “faith” already have their minds made up and they just don’t have the strength or ability to question the silly stories that have been fed to them for their entire lives.
In reality it is much easier to have “faith” and not ask questions than it is to believe that this life is all there is and question the silly stories that have been told for the past 4,000 years. This is why there are many people on the planet today who actually think that the Earth, and therefore existence, is only 7,000 or so years old. These same people assert that dinosaurs and man coexisted for a time until Noah’s flood.
I was raised Catholic and I went to a Catholic grade school through eighth grade. As a result I didn’t have a real science class until high school because we had an hour of religion everyday for 8 years. I started to realize it was all bullshit by the time I turned 15.
In closing, one of my favorite scenes from Religulous is where Bill Maher and the director Larry Charles are talking about how many people go through the motions of a religion simply for the chance at an afterlife. Bill Maher says something to the effect that these people have the attitude of “You can’t get saved if you don’t play”!
Just like the lottery…
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Speaking of dumbass religious people and poker, how annoying is Jerry Yang at the World Series FT. I want to hit him whenever I see his face.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:09 am
I watched religulous last week. I didn’t find it as insightful as you (Steve) did. Bill did a polemic and it’s not as if he debated the most intellectual people. The interesting thing about religulous for me was seeing how “extreme”, and close-minded a lot of people were. I have been in the US for about 5 years. And the thing a lot of foreigners don’t get about the US is how BIG and diverse it truly is. I have lived in Burma and Botswana and a lot of my friends regard the US as objective, highly educated, righteous type of characters, at least the Americans in our country had those traits. The notion that US government is heavily intertwined with church was unbelievable until now. My epiphany since, was that despite all the universities, research and scholarships there are so many dumbasses in the states. By dumbass I simply mean ignorant. e.g. yesterday at the tax-rally protests, some of the signs being waved was maximum dumbass.
The animosity and terrorism that is founded is NOT based on the hatred towards these dumbasses. Sept 11 was not a quibble between poor, ignorant men. Its based on US foreign policy, the double standards and exploitation that western nations imposed on poorer nations.
The whole point of Bill’s movie was to point out that religion could do more harm than good, today. Otherwise religulous is pointless. I am not sure if Bill accomplished that. I didn’t learn anything from the movie other than he interviewed incoherent lost in translation edited mumbo jumbo… But I did LMAO.
Personally I believe the root of all problem is poverty, terrorism will occur whether in the name of god or not as long as there are inequities. Who benefits and who looses from terrorism? There is a reason why some men are rich and some poor, sometimes its good entrepreneurship, sometimes it’s sheer slavery.
It’s the fat cats that need to be scrutinized. If there is anything I know for certain is that there is no limit to human cruelty or greed. And when you do see these things sometimes all a man has left is his prayer.
Like the old priest said “We live and die with our stupid ideas.”
April 17th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The film was pro-Israeli and pro Jewish (I’m both). But not really an atheist film imo.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:22 am
The whole problem is you can’t use reason with to disprove something that is inherently irrational. Faith by its very definition is the suspension of disbelief, of questioning, of thought.
All in all though it makes me very glad to see we are finally growing as a species and in just 100 years we’ll be pretty much done with religion except for the occasional mentally deranged person.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Nice blog, I watched the movie, and found it quite interesting.
The only wrong thing is the one you quoted: the all story of Horus has been proven wrong check it out and maybe correct it, because it can weak your argument.
Kind regards
October 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
i am an athiest and a conservative, raised by southern baptists. in reply to papa, i to notice that religous people seem happier on the exterior, but i veiw that the same as a child with candy. a child may seem happy with a lollipop in there hand but we know as adults and parents that if we keep feeding them those lollipops the end results will be a nation of corpulous beknighted and down right angry people.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:23 am
Bogus blog about a bogus ziomist movie… 30 minutes against christians, 45 minutes against Muslims (that get absolutely bashed), only critique on judaism is the rabbi that doesn’t recognize Israel…
Bill Maher as an objective person??? Go get lost…
A two hours commercial for Israel masked to be appealing to culturate American middle class people like all of you… Open you eyes…