It's the same as saying (as we do in the UK) that football or violent video games are the cause of violent crime in the modern age. They're not the cause - human nature is the cause. Religion, football, violoent video games, your country's customs - they are the causes that people disagree over in order to justify starting some shit. Banning religion / football / violent video games / cultural differences won't stop viole nce or any of the other more negative aspects of the human condition - and it's this simple truth that I think the foaming-at-the-mouth militant atheist fundamentalists (yep, we're looking at YOU, Dawkins and Maher) seem to miss every time. However, Darwyn, you seem to have hit it squarely on the nose. Now all we need is for you to make the movie Maher wishes he could have and straighten this whole thing out.

Now I'm going to kick back and kick Graham Kendrick's ass for writing "Shine Jesus Shine", thus introducing the concept of 'warm and fuzzy' to the emotional composition of the modern Christian...

And Lucasblows, how do you define "evil"?

Very basic example: You have your finger on a trigger that will release a bomb that will destroy millions of people trapped on a secure island. You trigger the bomb. They all die.

This was an EVIL act if your motives were to just kill millions in the name of your religion / political stance / foreign policy / furtherance of murky political motives.

This was a GOOD act if all these people were carrying an extremely virulent Ebola x1,000,000 that could wipe out mankind, and you had to wipe them out to stop the disease from spreading like wildfire.

The act itself either kills for no sensible reason, or becomes the act that saves the human race - but all because of the motives behind it. The concept is obviously a lot more complex, but that's my view of it - religion is not intrinsically evil, but if someone uses religion as a tool to further their evil motives - the outcome CAN be evil.

Besides, most religions teach the Golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - as the backbone of their philosophy. You find the less pure tenets of most faiths come in when people add stuff to those religions to further their own ends, whatever they may be. But religion, as and of itself, is not evil.

This movie looks edgy, but - as per usual - is just some old agitprop picking on a safe subject to place his prejudices on. Let's see him go to Saudi Arabia and tell the governments there that they're wrong about their religion - then see him try to get out of there alive...

Oh-- And Religion can not only be evil, I am convinced it is the source (or perhaps just a symptom) of ALL evil.

Discuss.

Go State indeed!

Did you see the shout out to you guys up there? I'm hoping to be back in the TB's soon. Namaste!

Go State!

Wait, that's not in the Constitution? Or the Bill of Rights? Are you sure? Yup, it's not there. Go pound sand, Maher - if you've got the right to be consistently unfunny, I obviously do not have the right to be 'unoffended'. The question is, who will be the first to kill for this non-existent, unassailably absent right?

As for your ironically hilarious points on history, it has been documented from sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with the thousands of copies dating from around 60 years after the New Testament was written, that the accuracy of the Bible is around 95%, with most of the errors involving punctuation and spelling. Perhaps you can spell out the similarities between Jesus and Zeus. One was "king" of the gods because he killed his father Cronus by getting Cronus to swallow a stone instead of him (Zeus). Zeus loved to screw mortal women and acted more like a drunken frat boy than the god of thunder. And this equates to Jesus how?

All those people who believe in a higher power (i.e. God) are idiots, morons, sheeple, deluded, lemmings, etc? Right. I think a huge majority of the human population believes and yet some of you are willing to say that they are all dumb, unenlightened stooges? And you few are the enlightened ones who live on the higher plane of reality and look down your noses at the stupid masses. Wow, what balls you have to be that arrogant and condescending! Fucking prideful elitists.

Maher doing an anti-religion movie? Apparently he should either learn how to structure an argument or at least look up the term "preaching to the converted."

So you're still a follower, you just follow the teachings of Bill Maher and Bill Hicks (who, by the way, had a great deal of respect for the teachings of Jesus, just not the church that followed him) rather than follow the teachings of Jesus. You're as much a sheep as the believers you denigrate, you just listen to a different gospel - the Gospel of the Sarcastic Nihilist. Go you.

Why is it in discussions like this, the non-believers eventually sound more fundamentalist than the believers, who for the most part believe in live and let live?

Fuck Bill Maher, and his lame ass hate movie. What a dickless turd that schill is. His fans too, for that matter. Fucking ignorant sheeple.

It's too bad that we finally get an avowedly atheist movie, and it sounds smarmy and self-important. Shit.

" I think that if you happened to be born in an arab country you'd probably be muslim, if you happened to be born in Israel you'd probably be Jewish..."

People get that vein popping in their forehead and they want to smite me. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, if I say something like:

"I think that life is a completely random event in the cosmos and that when we die our consciousness ceases to exist"

They fully expect and want a lightning bolt to strike me down dead. What the hell? If you believe in an afterlife, that's fucking great for you. I'm jealous. Imagine an atheist punching out a Christian because the Christian said "hey buddy! let's hang out in heaven if I don't see you again!" I still expect religious people to either laugh at me or look at me like I'm a cancer patient when I tell them I'm atheist, but instead, they want to beat me up. Let me ask you this: If you believe, I mean reaaally believe that you're going to heaven, and I'm probably going to hell, to BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY, why THE FUCK do you care if I don't?

He's in no historical texts from the time, no government texts of the time, no birth records, no death records. . . There's no mention of him in any way whatsoever outside of the religion that claims he existed and, by the way, also claims he was a demigod.

You'd think that people would write about a controversial guy who raises the dead, walks on water, cures lepers, heals the blind, preaches constantly, and who is subsequently arrested, crucified, and entombed. You'd think that if this same fellow were suspected of coming out of that tomb after he'd been presumed dead, they'd have something to say about him; A note, a mention, a medical inquiry, a record of punishment for the soldier or doctor who "verified" his death, a military note of award or commendation for the guys that subdued this "demigod", a brag, a boast, a "hey, did you hear who they crucified last week?" story. ANYTHING!!!

Instead, there's nothing. Not one record. Not one note. Not one private citizen wrote about it in their diary. Not one person made a note of it in public records. NOBODY ever heard of, saw, met, or witnessed the death of Jesus of Nazareth, except those people who declared themselves "Apostles". Don't you think that's a bit strange? NOT ONE WORD ABOUT JESUS' EXISTENCE HAS BEEN FOUND OUTSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

Look it up. Go ahead. The only outside-the-Bible mention was discovered to be be a forgery. Otherwise, nothing has been discovered-- not by Christians or secular anthropologists-- for over 2000 years.

Saul (Paul) of Tarsus wrote of Jesus as a parable. Nothing more. When the tale of Jesus was first written, it was some thirty to fifty years AFTER his supposed resurrection; That's the first time in history his name was ever mentioned. The story of Jesus- according to Saul himself- was not meant to be in the real world, but in the world of parables, where fantastic things happen. It was not told as history, but as tale of fantasy.

Deists who founded America (like Thomas Jefferson) did NOT believe the Christian Bible. In the absence of any scientific understanding of the origins of the universe and our own species, they believed in an uninvolved creator that simply made the universe-- and humanity-- and then disappeared, never to be involved again. Jefferson himself mocked the supposed divinity of Jesus. He even cut up the Bible into pieces and glued it back together to make a Bible without all the supernatural elements, which he thought were ridiculous and improbable. (The Jefferson Bible. Look it up.)

So sorry, people: There was never a Jesus Christ. He's part of Saul's fairy tale, written to inspire people and NOT intended to be taken literally.

Of course, it goes without saying that there's no God/Jehovah either. Of course, children are taught by adults to believe in the impossible from the moment they're born; First it's Santa Claus, then the Easter Bunny, then the Tooth Fairy. You're mentally conditioned by your parents to trust things on faith alone, in hopes of some sort of reward. When they start shoving Jesus down your maw, you slurp it up because your fragile psyche needs at least ONE of these tales told by your parents to be real, and because by that time it's too late. You've been indoctrinated and the NEED to believe is so strong that you can't shake it.

Call it faith if you want. I call it brainwashing.

Frankly, I think it should be illegal (child abuse) for parents to introduce religion to their children until they're in their teens. At that point, give them the options, tell them all the tales, and let them make up their own mind. I'm sure you'll see a lot fewer people becoming Christians, Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, Hindus, or following any other religion based on falsehoods and faith.

The worst part of it? About 90% of Christians have NEVER even read the Bible cover-to-cover. They only believe based on what they're TOLD by their pastor, their parents, the assholes who exploit their faith (Dobson, TD Jakes, etc.) and their fellow Christians. But open up and read the ENTIRE Bible?!?! Why should they be bothered to do that (or work to comprehend it) when they can just be told the "good parts" by someone who deigns to "know God" better than they do?

It's a good thing science doesn't work that way. Scientists actually *read* their books, and if they don't agree with the hypothesis within, they work to find the RIGHT hypothesis instead of just passing off the inaccurate one for thousands of years.

I encourage all Christians with an open mind (that may be an oxymoron, I know) to listen to Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God" -- It's a story about a Julia's personal experience with her faith. She was devoutly religious, but wanted to delve deeper into her beliefs. When she did, what she found was that it was more of a comfort food than a nutritional diet of information. It's humorous, respectful of religion, and explains why a person who believes in God with her whole heart, who was raised to love God and cherish her religion, would eventually turn to atheism.

I know you won't listen to it, though. The first requirement of religion is to close your mind to other points of view. Your cult is the only way, and you're not even ALLOWED to listen to other points of view objectively. To do so would bring scorn upon you from the other members of your faith. (She touches on this, too... Not that you'll ever know.)

Good luck, religion. You'll be extinct some day. I wish it would be within my lifetime, but I suspect it will take another 150 years before humanity finally gives up its security blanket.

Yes, Jesus is your woobie. Face it. Let it go.

Also, let me say that equating catholicism with Christianity is erroneous. Protestant pastors are allowed to marry, and while they may commit adultery every once in a while, they don't molest boys. Likewise, not every service is liturgical and involves the worship of saints and Mary.

Lastly, returning to the reason for this talkback, (and, incidentally adressing zerocorpse) what rankles me as a Christian is that condencing, mocking attitude that dismisses all believers as being simple-minded, hateful, intolerant bigots. Which is what Maher comes off as, if the reviewer is correct, and what ZeroCorpse and his ilk certainly comes off as. Tell you what: i'll watch religulous if you atheists watch Ben Stein's Expelled, which i don't think was ever reviewed by AICN. way to look at both sides, Harry.

There is a patronizing/condescending tone that seems to come to the surface more often than not when a believer is dealing with a non-believer.

I think the atheist view has killed more than the religious view. Communism has one hell of a body count. Makes Hitler look like an amateur.

I concede that a man named Jesus exists, too. Right now he's in the parking lot at Home Depot waiting to be hired to work on your lawn.

And, please-- Don't get me wrong. I DO despise religion and people who whole-heartedly and illogically embrace it. I don't think I made it any big secret.

I went to Christian schools much of my life. I studied theology seriously. I've been a member of several religions, and I come from a family where Quakers, Shakers, Southern Baptists, Nazarenes, Lutherans, and other protestants are the dominant members of my clan. I'm the black sheep now because I rejected religion after all they did to pound it into my head.

I lived in Grand Rapids for eight miserable years, and in my time there I met every kind of Evangelical Christian you could imagine, but they ALL had the same shit-eating grin on their face, and they ALL reviled me openly. Some of them would be polite while they shoveled disdain my way, while others would wait until I wasn't looking and they'd damage my personal property (break car windows, rip bumper stickers off my stuff, tear pages out of my books). So please, don't tell me that my little speech up there is an example of intolerance-- I spent most of my adult life facing the intolerance of Christians. I've been denied jobs because I wasn't a Christian, physically assaulted because I expressed a differing religious opinion, and verbally abused because I openly expressed my lack of faith.

I know that it's not ALL Christians who do these things, but you are responsible for your creed and what members do. If you can take jubilant credit for their conversion to your faith, you must also take blame for their misbehavior under the banner of God's love.

My own sister is a fundamentalist Christian. My grandfather was a fire & brimstone Quaker who believed everyone else was damned, and that Jesus Christ himself was going to escort him to Heaven upon his death. I admired my Grandfather, but I never agreed with him or the way he treated some people over religious matters.

The point here is that I'm allowed to disagree, and YOU'RE allowed to disagree, and how we deal with that indicates our emotional maturity. I have no problem with you being an insular butt-head who takes offense at my opinion. More power to you, mate! But there's a difference between you taking offense to it and directly addressing me, personally. You couldn't be a good Christian and "turn the other cheek" even though you KNOW it's what you're supposed to do, right? You had to come at me ready to debate, fight, and defend your faith.

Whereas I don't care if you insult me. I'll defend my points, but I really don't give a shit about your opinion of me, and I really don't see it as my duty to convert you out of your cult. If you want to be a brain-addled Christer, go right ahead. It's your life.

Just keep the fuck out of my government, my schools, and my politics. Stay the fuck away from women's clinics and anything having to do with science that threatens your faith. Worship quietly as your Jesus asked of you, and keep your fairy tales out of my way.

For the record, my rant doesn't just apply to Christians-- I loathe ALL religions. I tolerate some more than others, though. I've never had a Wiccan proselytize or try to interject their faith into politics. I've never had any problems with Taoists trying to convert me, or threatening to hurt me because I wasn't also a Taoist. But I have consistantly had bad experiences with members of all Abrahamic religions, and a few others (Hindus and I do not seem to get along).

When the religious nuts stop trying to interject their faith into my life, I'll stop loathing them. I don't care what you BELIEVE-- I only care how you interact with the things I hold dear. If you threaten MY way of life, you'd damn well better expect my scorn.

So no, I have no respect for your religion. Fuck your religion, and fuck you for insisting that I not disrespect it. I'll disrespect it as long as it's not worthy of respect.

Blue Demon-- Mother Teresa didn't feed the poor in Calcutta (I assume you were invoking her). She was allowing the sick to die, in agony, and declared their suffering to be "holy." She wouldn't give them relief from the pain or deplorable conditions because their suffering was what she believed God wanted. So even the Saints are vile people. Feeding a few poor people doesn't make up for what was essentially cult-inspired torture.

Ack...gotta get back to work. Insurance waits for no man.

As for the "You're going to hell" comment, well, that's what the bible teaches. If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then you have to agree with that. But that's an issue for you and the Lord to work out.

Oh, and by the way, if you don't believe in this stuff, then just ignore the bellicose preachers and live your life. I surivived undergrad and grad school at a liberal arts university where the vaaaaast majority of professors didn't believe; when they mocked my faith, I just sighed and moved on.

The only point worth making here is in what capacity, at what level of influence does either the presence or absence of religion affect grand murderous rampages, wars, pogroms, holocausts, atrocities, genocides, ethnic cleansings, etc. Your position is that the absence of religion causes these things more than the presence of it. Though I'm loathe to admit, I take the opposite view.

I don't happen to believe that human values, morality, or the concept of goodness flows from religion. In fact, I believe it's the other way around. I think the human construct of religion has cast itself around an older, more innate human instinct that has since been labeled goodness, and then claimed sole propriety over these instincts.

Therefore, I don't believe that an absence of religion necessarily denotes an absence of morality, it is simply an absence of a ritualized tribal vestige. Human goodness can and does exist without religion, as does the capacity for human evil. The fact that atheists commit evil acts is not because they are atheists, whether or not they are atheists is an incidental detail.

The same argument cannot be used for religion, however. Whereas atheism essentially doesn't matter, religion absolutely does, when it comes to examples in history of crimes against humanity. In fact, I would argue that the most remarkable, grotesque and singularly unique examples of human brutality, with the exception of the Holocaust, perhaps, was carried out by true believers honestly thinking they were doing their deity's will. Do you see my point? Religious crimes are committed BECAUSE of the religion of the criminal, in most cases, whereas atheists crimes are committed for other reasons.

There's a point to be made that a religion that can't adapt to an ever-changing world, and an ever-expanding field of knowledge about our world is doomed to wither and become irrelevant. That's what baffles me about the resistance to the mounting evidence of Global Warming, or Intelligent Design or Creationism movements- they're just so astonishingly counter-intuitive, so stridently hostile to neutral, reasonable ways of thinking that are not in and of themselves anti-religious, that it reminds me of the Shakespearean line: "thou doth protest too much". There's something very competetive about it, as if the creationists believe that science is an adversary, like a visiting football team, horning in on turf that was already claimed by religion. How very macho. In fact, and I'm sure you understand this- science isn't actually a belief system or an ideology, it's a method, and one that is built on the premise that it can be wrong, often is wrong, and will never be complete. It's an open-minded process, whereas the creationist's version of Christianity is air-tight and hermetically sealed against even the most passive investigation. One thing that always amuses me about Creationists is their adopting of the empirical state of 'theory' as applied to Natural Selection. "Darwin's theory is just that- a theory", they announce, triumphantly, firmly believing that they have felled Goliath with his own stone. Well, Like I said, Science is a method, and in fact, all science, (with the exception of a fraction of the observable stuff and phenomena that make up our immediate surroundings) is "just a theory". That's how science works. The empirical process begins with an idea, opinion, or leap of intuition, or most often, an unexpected accident, then a hypothesis is formed. Once the hypothesis has been put through a series of tests it becomes a theory. At any point along this line if anything goes wrong, if the hypothesis falls apart under evidence, it never reaches the level of theory. A theory becomes a theory when everything goes right, when all tests and evidence add up to what the hypothesis posits, but something like evolution can't become scientific fact because no one has so far sat down to observe the process over millions of years and take notes. Empirically speaking, it remains 'just a theory', But a theory with almost 200 years of rigorous, mounting evidence and experimentation that supports it. With each and every field of scholarship in science that has developed since Victorian times, geology, chemistry, biology, anthropology, (among others) the theory of evolution has been supported. Not once, in almost two centuries has the slightest hint that there might be something wrong with it ever shown up. So "Just a theory" actually means a great, great deal.

It's ironic that the method of science that prevents it from labeling evolution as fact is the thing most infinitely sensible about it, and the thing that creationists try to use against it, without any sense.

Anyway, there's a new Religulous TB at the top. Let's go there.

I like your view of this human instinct we label good coming from within us. I don't agree with it, but it is a sweet thought (and no, I'm not being a wise-ass.) This view of yours, that religion was based on this human trait kind of proves the point I want to make that religion, if based on good, is good! I agree, the absense of religion does not denote the absense of morality. There are some wonderful atheists out there, just as there are some vile Christians. You say that the fact that atheists commit evil acts is not because they are atheists. Okay, I can go with that. Where I have to disagree with you is where you say that Religious crimes are commited BECAUSE of the religion of the criminal. You say that various crimes are carried out by true believers "honestly thinking they were doing their deity's will." That's the key phrase here. Up on the talkbalk I said that people commit atrocities not BECAUSE of their religion, but IN SPITE of their religion. It is because of a horrific misinterpretation of faith that these murders occur. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is okay for a person who disagrees with abortion should kill an abortion doctor.

Using your view, that religion was based on the goodness of man and not the other way around, then religion is probably a way to what? Articulate that feeling? Then it is a good thing. I feel religion, at its core, is here to make the world a better place.

I must say, I have enjoyed this exchange. It's nice to run into somebody who disagrees with me who doesn't resort to name-calling. The word "douchebag" gets use more in talkbacks than on the floor of a douchebag factory. :)

It seems like alot of religion is about that: Painting man as primarily bad creatures in need of a savior. If something good happens, it's God's will, not because of anything man did. If something bad happens, it's because mankind has free will and they're full of sin. We humans can't win!

It has little to do with the whole notion of religion, but the idea that man is inherently good is worthy of a good ol' fashined LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!