LJWorld.com / Maher finds 'religulon' in scathing documentary

Archive for Friday, October 10, 2008

Bill Maher goes to the Vatican during one of his quests in "Religulous."

By Colin Covert - Star Tribune (Minneapolis)

October 10, 2008

Smarmy, smirky and relentlessly self-congratulatory, Bill Maher might be the last person atheists would want to represent their position in public, except for one crucial fact. He is so very, very smart and funny.

Maher's antireligion documentary, "Religulous" (it rhymes with ridiculous), has numerous blasts of raucous humor amid passages that feel like a screed. Maher occasionally uses his prodigious powers of mockery against creationists, jihadis, divinely inspired gay-bashers and self-proclaimed saviors of every stripe. Mostly, though, he just asks everyday believers inconvenient questions, corrects their factual errors and allows them to make fools of themselves. Anyone affiliated with a Big Important Religion should brace for a sound thrashing. And that goes double for Scientologists.

The film is structured as a travelogue, following Maher on a pilgrimage from the Holy Land to Rome, London, Amsterdam, Salt Lake City and the Bible Belt. At every stop along the way, he asks true believers to explain the basis of their faith, quizzes scientists about their religious convictions (the vast majority identify themselves as atheists) and interviews apostates about why they have departed their former beliefs. Director Larry Charles revs up the momentum with frequent cuts to cheesy Biblical epics, outbursts of sectarian violence and, in the case of one high-living Latino evangelist, Brian DePalma's "Scarface."

In some cases, no jokes are needed. A tour through a creationist theme park shows dinosaurs coexisting with cavemen, including a model stegosaurus wearing a saddle. And the film offers a Comparative Religions 101 overview of stories that circulated around the Near East thousands of years earlier. The Egyptian god Horus; Mithra, a Persian god, and Krishna, the Indian god, all have biographies that overlap Christ's.

The film is unlikely to change many minds. If atheists had a choir, Maher would be preaching to it. The film has no taste for ambiguity, and it might have worked better if it at least glancingly noted religion's positive contributions. I'm not saying that the Sistine Chapel, Bach's "St. Matthew Passion" and Catholic Charities make up for the Crusades, but it's something. "Religulous" is at its most intriguing when Maher has nuanced discussions with a couple of priests. The Vatican astronomer eloquently explains why the Bible can't be used to teach science, and a good-humored retired priest says the scriptures are a valuable moral guidebook, but it doesn't matter because people are going to do what they're going to do anyway.

Maher drops the joking tone in the end. He argues that putting nuclear weapons in the hands of political leaders who are guided by ancient mythologies is unhealthy for the future of the human race. "Grow up or die," he warns. It's a stern conclusion to a rollicking sermon.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

10 October 2008
at 5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

Should be an interesting movie. Religion has its place, and those who choose to believe should be respected. Mythology and theology do not, however, generally drive good public policy decisions. Beyond trying to live up to the 'golden rule' common to all the major religions, religous concepts generally do not translate well into the public square.
10 October 2008
at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

Go Mahar. What a sad statement that in a supposedly enlightened country, atheists are now one of the most discriminated against minorities, and it is a prerequisite for the president of the united states to acknowledge his/her belief in an imaginary friend before they have any hope of holding office. I, too, do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of those who believe in talking serpents, and that a nude woman tempted the first man with an apple.
10 October 2008
at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

I can't wait to see this!
10 October 2008
at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

More evidence of the conservative media, right?
10 October 2008
at 9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acg (Anonymous) says…

This is going to be awesome. I love Bill Maher, always have. I was royally ticked when they fired him off of Politically Incorrect. I think he's smart and funny and can pull this off without being too condescending (I hope). I am so not into religion, but those that believe so completely fascinate me.
10 October 2008
at 9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

Ironically Bill has become “one high-living (Atheist) evangelist.”
10 October 2008
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

I like Bill Maher, really I do. I got HBO solely to be able to watch Real Time, that and John Adams and Operation Kill. I've been a fan of his since Politically Incorrect. That being said, it has to be mentioned, however, that he has gone over the cliff with this loathing of Religion of any type. He has got to the point where his Atheism is a religion in itself. He is so consumed by this hatred for religion that has become his religion outright. I have no doubt this film will be funny, but I had to mention that Bill has gone off the deep end with his distain for people's faiths.
10 October 2008
at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

Preebo, I am a little confused. Are you equating virulent hatred with organized religion? I'm not saying I disagree (or agree), but I don't believe that the definition of religion is based solely on fanatacism.
10 October 2008
at 10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

cthulhu_4_president….

Try to define “religion” the U.S. Supreme Court has been struggling with that one for a while.

Maher may be a good entertainer, but smart…ha!
10 October 2008
at 10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

foodboy (Anonymous) says…

In a recent TV interview on The Daily Show, Maher said that he was not an atheist. He believes that atheists are as dogmatic and locked in to their views as are the devout.
While I share some of his thoughts on religion, especially the radicals of any faith, I agree with the reviewers assessment of Maher-“Smarmy, smirky and relentlessly self-congratulatory”. I believe strongly in Freedom of religion and even more strongly in freedom from religion.
10 October 2008
at 10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

You're right Satirical. It continues to elude me why the Supreme Court has such a hard time with it when I just took an intro class in college and used a dictionary. According to my professors in this class, a religion must meet 3 guidelines:
1) A moral direction or instruction (or set of instructions)
2) A being or central idea that serves as the foundation or as a parable for the ultimate “good” (an archetype for “evil” is not necessary)
3) A belief of some afterlife or existance that is superior or desireable relative to the earthly existance which is attainable through the teachings of said religion.

I submit that atheism offers none of the above three points. I welcome differing opinions, though!
10 October 2008
at 10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

“I, too, do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of those who believe in talking serpents, and that a nude woman tempted the first man with an apple.”
*******************************************************************
Instead you want them in the hands of people who believe that they will be met in heaven by 70 black eyed virgins, and that you in the west are pure evil and must be terminated. Way to go!
10 October 2008
at 11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

I don't believe I said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
10 October 2008
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

manus_flexibilis (Anonymous) says…

-At every stop along the way, he asks true believers to explain the basis of their faith, quizzes scientists about their religious convictions (the vast majority identify themselves as atheists) and interviews apostates about why they have departed their former beliefs.- “Some people have the option of retiring or basically self-terminating, possibly to join the masses of dysfunctionial beliefs.” -The Vatican astronomer eloquently explains why the Bible can't be used to teach science, and a good-humored retired priest says the scriptures are a valuable moral guidebook, but it doesn't matter because people are going to do what they're going to do anyway.- “Good humored or not, sounds like religious (retirement) economics, done served the purpose.”
10 October 2008
at 11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

No one-not even Bill-escapes/transcends belief systems.
He just keeps his god hidden, to avoid the sort of mockery to which he subjects those who wear their gods on their sleeves.
10 October 2008
at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

tan, are you saying that everyone believes in a God, even if they claim that they do not? I'm not trying to argue. Just curious.
10 October 2008
at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

I'm saying… everyone *believes*.

( and “god” is a nebulous enough concept to serve as the object )
10 October 2008
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mleanna (Anonymous) says…

As was pointed out in comments above, Bill Maher is not an atheist, he is an agnostic; he has been very clear about this position. Rather than representing the views of atheists, as the article says, I would describe him as more of a skeptic. Most of what he's doing here is asking questions. I don't really see why actually thinking and questioning what is generally accepted is offensive to anyone. Personally, I consider thinking through things rationally to be a positive trait.

That said, I disagree with Bill Maher on many things. But the general attitude that there are certain topics we're just not allowed to question is, in my opinion, ridiculous. So I welcome people who bring these issues into conversation, who prompt people to question and defend their own views.
10 October 2008
at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

madmike (Anonymous) says…

I am not religious, and the last time I went to any kind of a church was back in 1973, but Maher is little more than a leftist pain in the butt, like Michael Moore.
10 October 2008
at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

Tan, I may not be understanding your position clearly. If you are saying that everyone believes in something even though there may be little direct evidence I would say you are correct. I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, even though I have no evidence of this except for the face that the sun has come up every other day, which is anecdotal, not scientific, evidence. If, though, you are arguing on behalf of a nameless, omnipotent superbeing, I would suggest that you may be incorrect, as I and several of my associates are perfectly comfortable with the idea of a universe with no such superbeing. Perhaps we should agree to disagree :)
10 October 2008
at 12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

couranna1 (Anonymous) says…

madmikey, Yes he is but at least he is not a neocon piece of what comes out of the butt
10 October 2008
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Peaty (Anonymous) says…

I've seen the preview and hope it plays locally, I'd like to see it and decide for myself if I like the movie. I do like Bill Maher.

I think there are quite a few misconceptions about what an Atheist really is. I feel this sums it up well enough:

http://www.infidels.org/library/moder…

This is pretty good too:

http://www.infidels.org/library/moder…
10 October 2008
at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Cthulhu_4_president:

Yeah, your professor must be way smarter than every Justice who has ever served. Just because you can look up a word in the dictionary doesn't mean it isn't too overinclusive or underinclusive to be universally accurate. Your professor's definition does not encompass everything which could be regarded as a religion. Especially your 3rd criteria, not all religions believe in an afterlife or superior existence.
10 October 2008
at 1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Mleanna:
“So I welcome people who bring these issues into conversation, who prompt people to question and defend their own views.”

I agree that there is nothing wrong with questions, but there is a line between questioning and mocking. Questioning is thought provoking and productive; mocking is close minded and childish. You can find idiots from any religion and ask them questions. While I have obviously not seen this film, knowing Maher, it is likely mocking and does not add to any productive social discourse. Likely this film is purely for entertainment.
10 October 2008
at 1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

Satirical: I was not trying to belittle your opinion, I was trying to expand upon it. I'm sorry if you interpreted it as such. Please realize that these criteria are not “mine”, they are a widely accepted definition of true religion. Also, just because something is “regarded” as a religion does not mean it is a religion. As I said in my post, I welcome differing opinions and the chance for dialogue. What religious beliefs are not encompassed by the 3 criteria?
10 October 2008
at 1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

couranna1 (Anonymous) says…

Fox news channel has just reported that the holy spirit is really the ghost of Janis Joplin
film @ 11
10 October 2008
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Cthulhu_4_president:.

I did not interpret your post as belittling my opinion. I understand the criteria were not “yours' (I mistakenly said “your 3rd criteria” previously). I also understand the definition you gave may be widely accepted. My counterargument was that since humans are capable of defining a word to be anything, and some of the most intelligent humans cannot find an all encompassing definition of “religion,” it is very possible such a definition could include atheism. The definition below could easily encompass such.

“4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”
http://www.answers.com/religion

“Also, just because something is “regarded” as a religion does not mean it is a religion.” c_4_p

That is a tautological argument.

“What religious beliefs are not encompassed by the 3 criteria?” c_4_p

I am sure there are more, but off the top of my head; Unitarian.
10 October 2008
at 1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

Wow!! Now movie reviews are passing muster for big straight news stories?
10 October 2008
at 1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

I saw this movie last Saturday and it is definitely worth seeing. Several laugh out loud moments along with many thought provoking interviews with people of many different faiths and traditions.

Maher is a comedian, and his roll is to point out the absurd. Religion, when you really think about it, is quite absurd. Talking snakes, people living inside a whale, and all the other silly things in the bible are quite absurd when you really think about it. Maher talks with Mormans, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Catholics and other christians about their beliefs. He doesn't claim to have any truth, he only seeks answers to his questions. Religious people claim to have the truth, and never question it. See the film, it's not offensive at all, you'll have a good time no matter what your beliefs are.
10 October 2008
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Tangential—I do not accept your premise that no one “escapes” belief systems. Everyone is born an atheist, they have to be taught about a god.
10 October 2008
at 1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Peaty (Anonymous) says…

kansas778, where is it playing? I haven't check today but yesterday it was not in the Lawrence area.
10 October 2008
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

ksdivakat - you continue to amaze me with your lack of understanding of religion. Your ignorant statement -

“I, too, do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of those who believe in talking serpents, and that a nude woman tempted the first man with an apple.”
*******************************************************************
“Instead you want them in the hands of people who believe that they will be met in heaven by 70 black eyed virgins, and that you in the west are pure evil and must be terminated. Way to go!”

Do you have any clue about Islam? Obviously not. Muslims also believe in the Genesis story. The first books of the Koran, Torah and the Old Testament are pretty much the same. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are called the Abrahamic religions. Can you guess why? Could it be the father Abraham? I am always astonished at the cultural and religious ignorance of most Christians.

Maher's statement is about all leaders around the world that are religious fanatics, including our own fanatic leaders and how scary it is that they have the bomb.

You really need to spend less time on LJW and do some reading. Your ignorance is astonishing. Do a little googling on Abrahamic religions and enlighten yourself a little. It's actually quite nice to understand others and not be as bigoted towards others as you tend to be.
10 October 2008
at 1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Kansas778:

I don't think tangential was saying everyone is theist. One can have “faith” or a “belief system” without reference to a deity.

Also, you are not born atheist. No one has the cognitive ability when born or shortly after to be an atheist. And if everyone must be taught about God, how did the first person know about God? (just trying to refine your argument, I know what will be your reply).
10 October 2008
at 1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

“Everyone is born an atheist, they have to be taught about a god.”- ks778

Did you ever see the movie, “Nell”?
10 October 2008
at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

Satirical:
Thanks for the discussion!

My statement about religions being regarded as such may be seen as tautological, but if it were incorrect that would mean that every cult member on Earth is part of a legitimate religion (which is the example I was thinking of when i wrote it). This may be true in the philosophical sense, but not in the legal one, and that is ammo for another discussion altogether!

Unitarianism is interesting, and I admit that you may have answered the question that I was originally asking which is “Why does the law have such a hard time defining religion?” I am familiar with the fundamentals of the belief, but I am ignorant on their belief of the afterlife (if any). Perhaps you could enlighten me?

As for the definition from answers.com: I can only speak for myself and those whom I know, but a good deal of atheists I have come in contact with do not “pursue” their dis-belief of a God, or view it as a “cause”. I, myself, did not have to work for a cause to become an atheist. It seemed a natural way to me to view the world without any proof otherwise. I do not veheemently deny a God. If God, or Zeus, or Odin talks to me someday, then I will be a believer with no ill reservation. I and my ilk simply haven't had reason to believe yet. Atheists may seem zealous, and some militant atheists are, but true atheism isn't about a cause, it's just about taking the universe as we see it, and letting people believe what they want, even if it's nothing. Check out Peaty's first link above for a great definition of a logical atheist.

I got a little more preachy (pun intended) than I meant to. And you are right, some atheists (a vocal minority) do pursue actions trying to get others not to believe in any God, hence it could be perceived as a religion, but they are a fringe and are no better than the religious establishments they wish to destroy.
10 October 2008
at 2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Peaty, I live 1000 miles away from Lawrence right now. The movie came out last Friday out here, it was sold out.

Satirical—who says it requires any superior cognitive ability to be an atheist? Animals don't believe in gods, and neither do babies. Atheism or Agnosticism is the default position. And tangential used the word 'god' to define the object of belief.
10 October 2008
at 2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

Peaty - it's playing at Liberty Hall. 4:30, 7:00 & 9:30.
10 October 2008
at 2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Cthulhu_4_president:

Your argument was tautological because I disagreed that the definition of religion you provided was universally accurate and gave an example of when something is commonly understood as a religion but didn't fit in your definition, to which you responded the example was not a religion because it did not fit in the definition.

“This may be true in the philosophical sense, but not in the legal one” c_4_p

This is entirely my point, there is no uniform legal definition of “religion.” Whenever the law tries to define it, an example is provided which alters it to the point of either being too broad or still too narrow. I am not stating religion cannot be defined, merely that Atheism as practice by Maher could fall within one definition of religion.

I don't know all the beliefs of Unitarians, but as I understand it one can practice any belief and be a Unitarian.

While your anecdotal evidence may suggest you and your friends don't' belong to a “religion” ( I could offer an argument you still fall within the definition but decline), my argument was never: Everyone who is atheist is practicing a religion; my argument was in defense of preebo's statement “(Maher) has got to the point where his Atheism is a religion in itself,”to which you responded, “I don't believe that the definition of religion is based solely on fanatacism.” Since religion can be defined to include Maher's activities thought the previous definition I applied, I countered your counter argument.

As to your personal beliefs or lack thereof I have no contention. If you wish to continue discussing theism v. atheism I would be happy to oblige.
10 October 2008
at 2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Peaty (Anonymous) says…

kansas778 / Kmat, thank you - I figured it would be playing at the Liberty. I'm going to have to check it out.
10 October 2008
at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Kansas778:

You are putting words into my mouth and Tangential's. I didn't say it required “superior cognitive ability” I said newborn don't have the cognitive ability to be an atheist, and neither do (most) animals.

“Atheism or Agnosticism is the default position” KS778

Of course not knowing something is the default position until you know something. That goes without saying.

Tangential stated: “( and “god” is a nebulous enough concept to serve as the object )” He was referring to a belief in a object to which could be labeled “god.” He did not say everyone believes in deity as you implied.
10 October 2008
at 2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…

It's funny that you “believers” can only attempt to refute what people like Mr. Maher say, but you can't actually defend your own belief. “Everyone believes” is an erroneous statement attempting to obfuscate what non-believers and atheists actually are. Atheists need evidence, facts, logic, these are the antithesis of “faith”, which is the bread and butter of the more simplistic religions. As civilization gets closer and more packed together religion begins to die as it is realized as a divider of the human race and a barrier to real world peace. Religion is dying, there is no doubt about that, the real question is that is “bronze-age philosophy” going to kill us all before our time?

I would also say that Bill Maher is an agnostic, not an atheist, I wish he had a little more intellectual bravery.
10 October 2008
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Clint…
“It's funny that you “believers” can only attempt to refute what people like Mr. Maher say, but you can't actually defend your own belief.”

And you make this stereotypical broad conclusion based on…
10 October 2008
at 3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…

Exactly, thanks for proving my point “satirical”. Come after me, don't question yourself or what you are doing, it's obviously other peoples fault if your ancient belief system falls apart under scrutiny. “Satirical” no matter what you do, do not question your own belief system, simply attack the others that point out how ridiculous it is. Thank goodness the culture war is over, we can go back to teaching science in schools.
10 October 2008
at 3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Clint:.

I am not attacking you I am pointing out that your stereotypical conclusion doesn't appear to have any basis. I am pretty sure that is acceptable whether I am a theist or an atheist. Am I wrong?

Since you stress the importance of objectively verifiable facts, what facts do you have that I don't question my own belief system?
10 October 2008
at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Satirical—really? Why are you talking about the word superior as if that completely changes what you said. You said babies lack the cognitive ability, therefore, you are implying that some cognitive ability superior to that of a baby is required. How does that restatement change what you said?

Regardless, if not knowing something is all that is required, then I submit that babies and animals can easily not know something. I know this is going way out there, but I just have a hunch that it's true.

Now this is Tangential's quote:
Premise: “No one-not even Bill-escapes/transcends belief systems.”

Then he goes on to explain:
He just keeps his god hidden, to avoid the sort of mockery to which he subjects those who wear their gods on their sleeves.”

*Tangential* is the one talking about gods—by that explanitory sentence, he implies that Bill, like everyone, believes in gods.
10 October 2008
at 3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

cthulhu: “… If, though, you are arguing on behalf of a nameless, omnipotent superbeing, I would suggest that you may be incorrect, as I and several of my associates are perfectly comfortable with the idea of a universe with no such superbeing. Perhaps we should agree to disagree :)”

,;-D

cthulhu, you're having this argument with yourself, as I would never propose such an absurdity.

Hey, cthulhu…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DsgZ4…
10 October 2008
at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Kansas778:.

“Superior cognitive ability” and having a cognitive ability superior to a newborn baby are completely different. That is why I was making the distinction. (Do you need an illustration to make it easier for you?)

“Regardless, if not knowing something is all that is required, then I submit that babies and animals can easily not know something.”

What is your point:?

As to Tangential's point:
First, he later defined what he meant by “god” “(and “god” is a nebulous enough concept to serve as the object)” It was clear to every objective person he was not referring to a deity, but you chose to take his statement out of context.
Second, this is not my argument so it is pointless to discuss it any further.
10 October 2008
at 3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…

“what facts do you have that I don't question my own belief system?” - satirical

As a once proud logic student I cannot, with good conscious, attempt to prove a negative. That being said, I asked believers to make an argument for their own beliefs, instead of attacking the questioners of their beliefs, of course “satirical” attempted to change the subject, (and attacked me), instead of giving a coherent argument. How did you get all those holes in your feet “satirical”?
10 October 2008
at 3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Clint:

There is a difference between intelligent and logic atheist like cthulhu_4_president and you, who pretends to be logic and intelligent but is lacking (maybe you should try passing the logic course next time).

“As a once proud logic student I cannot, with good conscious, attempt to prove a negative.” - Clint

Where did I ask you to prove a negative? I asked you to provide facts to support your claim. Since you obviously cannot, your claim cannot be proven. (Or to make a logical analogy you could understand; you argued there is a God but provided no facts).

“:of course “satirical” attempted to change the subject, (and attacked me), instead of giving a coherent argument.” - Clint

You can misstate facts all you want, but everyone can read. You made a baseless claim (again no facts?) How ironic when you claim to rely on them so exclusively, you don't use them to support your own claims and distort them to attack others.

As I have told you in previous posts; arguing about beliefs is like trying to prove a science experiment by relying on faith. It is pointless. When will you learn this?
10 October 2008
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

I love this guy he is great, who else could point out the relevant facts that put religion and politics together. And tell it like it is Bill. we dont mind.
And science? thats just one proven fact over another. If I told you that ants are living on pluto as we live here, could you disagree with me and be completly sure of yourself.

Also, if the sun comes up and goes down and I am here to see it, Im not going to jump to any conclusions as to how this happens, and I am sure not going to upset anyone or any “thing” that may cause it
10 October 2008
at 4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Gotta go, have a good weekend all!
10 October 2008
at 4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

manus_flexibilis (Anonymous) says…

your only led to follow the masses of todays society, your looked down upon as an outcast if you don't follow any of the wonderful sects, faiths, ideologies, doctrines, etc…them heathen savages
10 October 2008
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“Wow!! Now movie reviews are passing muster for big straight news stories?”

What? Mel Gibson is making another “Passion” movie? Why didn't you cry foul back when he made that film and it was covered in the mainstream media constantly, Tom? Oh, I forgot, you're incredibly ignorant and biased.
10 October 2008
at 5:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Satirical (Anonymous) says:

Kansas778:.

“Superior cognitive ability” and having a cognitive ability superior to a newborn baby are completely different. That is why I was making the distinction. (Do you need an illustration to make it easier for you?)
*********************************
Are you sreious? Completely different? Yes, let's hear your wonderful illustration. Show me how someone with superior cognitive ability is *completely different* from someone with cognitive abiltiy superior to a baby. I'll get some popcorn, this should be good.
10 October 2008
at 6:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

It's interesting when Christians refer to atheists as being ignorant. Apparently, you have to believe that a man-written book of fantasy is reality in order to be intelligent.
10 October 2008
at 7:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

Defender, you thilly gooth!! We all know this is a cute little feel good pc. promoting Maher's film debut. The liberal media are always gonna love Bill.

Gibson was raked over the coals by the liberal media for weeks and weeks over his masterpeice. I'll grant you though, bad publicity can be good publicity. I thought “Apocolypso” was better personally. Loved all the blood and gore. Makes going to Quintanaroo seems more 21st century.

But, Defender, as always, I love your posts! Thanks for the laugh.
10 October 2008
at 7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

Maybe you could abbreviate it: LM.
10 October 2008
at 9:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“But, Defender, as always, I love your posts! Thanks for the laugh.”

And I love the laughter of a loon, Tom.

“Gibson was raked over the coals by the liberal media for weeks and weeks over his masterpeice.”

And praised in the right-wing media. Unfortunately, since you are so far to the right, right-wing news isn't news to you. It is your indoctrination, your bible, your god.
10 October 2008
at 9:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TacoBob (Anonymous) says…

Something wicked this way comes:

On May 3, 2005, while appearing as a guest on Craig Ferguson's Late Late Show (CBS), Maher made controversial remarks about Michael Jackson's alleged child molestation behavior. He spoke about the need for perspective when thinking about crimes and criminals. He implied that the alleged behavior wasn't as bad as it was widely deemed because it was only alleged that Michael Jackson “serviced” the children and not the other way around. After a response from Ferguson, Maher said “If I had a choice between being savagely beaten and being gently masturbated by a pop star. It's just me.” Immediately after Maher's statement, Ferguson ended the interview.

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002 after he made a controversial on-air remark on September 17, 2001,[38] in which he agreed with guest conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards. He then went on to say, “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.”

Maher's comment about the cowardice of terrorists followed another controversial comment he made on Politically Incorrect earlier that year where he compared dogs to retarded children: “But I've often said that if I had - I have two dogs - if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all…. Dogs are like retarded children.” When another guest told him that her nephew was retarded and that she didn't think of him as a dog, he responded with “Maybe you should.”

What a waste of blood.
10 October 2008
at 10:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

TacoBob: Kinda on the same level as Ann Coulter or El Rushbo, wouldn't you say?

Word is that Rush travels down to the Dominican Republic with his Viagra for some of that “Jackson Action.” ;)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.independentvoting.org
10 October 2008
at 10:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TacoBob (Anonymous) says…

Well, sort of. I thought we were talking about Bill. He made a movie. Just released. Not sure that your examples made movies. Not sure why they are relevant?

If you want to change topics, or justify Bill's examples by deflection, you may have a point. This is trailer park logic. My kids, when they were in grade school, used this kind of 'argument'. I know you are but what am I?

Left or right comparisons mean nothing. Bill is the topic. Given just these few examples of Bill's antics, can't understand why you would defend this bozo?

So you like this guy?
11 October 2008
at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Peaty (Anonymous) says…

Saw the movie last night. I liked it, it was very entertaining, the retired priest was a hoot.
11 October 2008
at 4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LiberalDude (Anonymous) says…

I saw it last night, too. It was outstanding. I haven't laughed that hard at a movie since Borat (which was made by the same guy).
11 October 2008
at 9:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“Trailer park logic?”

Why does this sound familiar?

Oh yeah. We've all heard this one before…

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/aug…

and before…

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun…

and before…

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/apr…

Pretty much, anything you don't agree with is “trailer park logic?”

And a commendation for original thinking to *you*, Admiral. Obviously, you don't like to lose.

Except, of course, when you do. ;)

Yes, we are talking about Bill Maher. And it's not “trailer park logic” to make comparisons to others.

Bill Maher occasionally says something to get his name in the papers. As does Rush, Coulter, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin, Olberman, and of course, the ultimate media whore, Pat Robertson.

Regardless what the lower-third credits them with when they pop up on the boob tube, I generally regard them all as comedians.

So, don't feel bad about your kids. I'm a parent, too. Don't we all want our kids to turn out smarter and better than us? Sounds like yours are getting a head-start. ;)

Do I like Bill Maher? I actually do. I never made much of an effort to stay up late and watch him on “Politically Incorrect,” but I really like his current show. I've watched it consistently, whenever we've had HBO. I don't tune in just for Maher—the selection of folks for the discussion panel is always fun. I don't know how much influence Maher has on that selection.

I had not heard about the “Michael Jackson comments” until you brought them up.

I remember the 2001 comment that lost him the ABC gig. I understand the “point” that Maher was getting at, although the fact that the terrorists stayed on the plane has less to do with “honor” and “bravery,” and more with “brainwashing” and “religious fanaticism.”

LIke I said, I've watched his HBO show on many occasions. So my opinion is based on much, much more than “just these few examples of Bill's antics.” I'm not here to defend him—why would I waste my time doing that? I'd rather spend that time watching his show.

I'm sure you and I have other, differing views about television programming. The good thing is that when it comes to entertainment options, nobody is forced to watch or listen to anything they don't enjoy, or don't agree with. We can always change the channel, tune to a different station, pick a different book or magazine.

—Ag
11 October 2008
at 9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Oh, and I probably won't be seeing the movie on the big screen.

We'll most likely rent the DVD, or just wait for it to show up on HBO.