Bill Maher’s Religulous Trailer Directed by Larry Charles
We all know that religion can be a touchy subject, but if there’s one guy who’s not afraid to tackle touchy subjects, it’s the former host of Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher. Religulous is an upcoming documentary from Maher, directed by Larry Charles (Borat), that has one purpose: to expose the hypocrisy and foolishness of all religions around the world. Actually, come to think of it… there is also a secondary purpose. To provide 90 minutes of humour and entertainment for atheists everywhere.
It pretty much goes without saying that this movie is going to piss a lot of people off. Part of me hopes that it will also get people talking and re-thinking their beliefs, but after watching the trailer, I’m not sure that it will. Bill Maher’s smug attitude isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind. Still, if you agree with Maher, I imagine this will be an enjoyable watch. The involvement of Larry Charles puts this up there with some of my most anticipated movies of the year. I just hope it will end up playing somewhere near me on October 3rd. Check out the trailer below, and also check out Maher’s newly launched anti-religion site www.disbeliefnet.com for even more “mythbusting”. Feel free to sound off in the comments below.
Comments (79)
Hmmmm.
Christianity….bashed.
Islam………..bashed.
Judaism………NOT bashed.
Lots to read between the lines with this one folks.
That is all I’m going to say.
Posted by Baychuk on June 7th, 2008Baychuk. Jesus fuck. I’m sorry, I have to call that a retarded statement. the Old Testament is part of the bible, and is umpteen more times more ridiculous and evil than the New Testament. You act like he has some special connection to it, as if Bill Maher has never made fun of Judaism on his show, as if he considers it a sacred cow, as if you can judge the entire movie based on that.
“that is all i’m going to say” – i’m a little tipsy, but i think while you may not think you have a lot more to say, you have a lot more to apologize for, and your comment is swayed by your stormfrontish leanings. bashing religion is just that, bashing religion. that includes all of them. i mean, your anger that they dont bash judaism reeks of a specific problem with judaism and some perceived lack of freedom for you to bash it. is that it? or is it the fact that asshole places like stormfront cant differentiate between judaism and jews? i have to call a spade a spade here baychuck, as much as i’d agree that judaism is full of shit, i think your comment is racially based and i’m calling it out for the horseshit front that it is.
anyways…
as for the movie, no. its not going to win over the hardcore religious whatsoever. they wont even see it. it could, like Dawkins’ books, sway fencesitters and rally the base, but if you’re thinking some West Virginian Klansmen cum uneducated whittling gun shop owner is going to be happy, definitely not.
Posted by Goon on June 7th, 2008i think my post requires a caveat:
Baychuk, despite your past (in my opinion) somewhat racist sympathy towards the Stormfront crowd, i should make it clear tom, i have no specific hate toward you personally, i liked it better when you were around more, whether you believe it or not the debates and discussions are better with you here. i simply vehemently disagree with some of your statements and hope you can differentiate it between my overall impression of you personally.
Posted by Goon on June 7th, 2008Can’t they make a documentary on religion where they don’t take the piss out of its subjects? Using a comedian as the host immediately gives ammo to those who don’t agree with the film and somewhat demeans the film as a whole.
But that being said I look forward to see this, because I like Maher and I’m interested in religious fanatics.
Posted by Swarez on June 7th, 2008And Baychuck? On what are you basing that comment on that they don’t bash Judaism? The trailer? Or have you seen the film?
Posted by Swarez on June 7th, 2008It’s about time someone analyzed the logic and hypocrisy of religion in a feature length film. Mahr and Charles are definitely good candidates for the job.
My father wants me to direct short films based on some Christian comic strips and all I’m going to want to make is a narrative form of this.
Posted by Ryan on June 7th, 2008Bill Maher is a piece of shit.
Posted by Jon Rocks on June 7th, 2008This looks pretty cool. Glad to see someone finally stand up to the b.s. that is religion.
Posted by Levi77 on June 8th, 2008“Can’t they make a documentary on religion where they don’t take the piss out of its subjects?”
root of all evil
the God who wasnt there
jesus camp
hell house
all take religion quite seriously, and theres even more of these on youtube. dont assume that just becasue this has a wide release that its nto possible, its just that humor is an easier pill to swallow for most people.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008I can’t say I laughed at all during this trailer, but I think Bill Maher has a funny voice and face, and Borat was hilarious, so if this gets released here, I’ll check it out. I think Root of all Evil would be a better release though, if you want people to think about religion. It’s too easy to just find the worst nutcase out there and let him look like a complete idiot for shits and giggles. I will take the shits and giggles from this though.
Posted by Henrik on June 8th, 2008Goon, Stormfront blows. Rense is where its at.
Posted by Baychuk on June 8th, 2008I met Maher once. He is amazingly stupid and is fed talking points by a large staff. This man is a complete communist/atheist and hates everything wholesome and old fashioned. He was a total creep to his staff, to “fans”, and is very flippant with his insults.
I wanted to squeeze his windpipe with my bare hands and I didn’t even talk to him.
I wish they would make a movie about the religion of atheism. The movie could show how they spend more time and devotion bitching and pissing on everyone else’s beliefs than most of us primitive folk spend in church/prayer. The movie could also show how atheist intolerance has led to the murder of nearly a million people….Nazis,Bolsheviks,Maoists,Khmer Rouge, Mongols etc. Then you could spend the rest of the film railing on the Pope and pissing on Santa.
The movie could be called, “Smug Aholes” or something.
I wish atheists could be more like Jay.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008I meant to say………”One billion people”…with Dr. Evil finger in corner of mouth.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008“This man is a complete communist/atheist and hates everything wholesome and old fashioned.”
My kinda guy.
“Nazis,Bolsheviks,Maoists,Khmer Rouge, Mongols”
Mongols were atheists? I guess Genghis Khan had it written down several places that he was only killing religious people, and that his goal was to rid the world of religion. *Sigh* Untill you prove that somebody was somehow convinced by atheism to commit genocide, you might as well blame Stalin and Hitlers black hair for their deeds.
And what does SANTA have to do with anything?
Posted by Henrik on June 8th, 2008Pol Pot?
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008six million jews?
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008I can’t get into the whole argument here and now…it’s so tired….I know it’s the cool thing right now to be super cynical about everything and piss on such things as capitalism, America, men, religion, the military/cops, social conventions etc…but I can’t wait until this hipster thing is over. For now I guess I’m punk rock.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008I saw a ten minute segment of the film at last year’s TIFF, it was very funny. I would also argue against this opinion that Bill Maher is not an intelligent person. I have seen him being interviewed by people whose every interest are to out him for something or the other (check him on Bill O’Reilly) and the man bobs and weaves and lays his stats down and is very convincing with his arguments. I personally do not agree with him in every respect but I would say he is at least intelligent enough to lead discussions on political affairs.
Judaism is definately bashed in the film, there is this whole long segment we saw at the wailing wall and they are cracking their jokes RIGHT there, while the faithful are all around them.
I am pro-faith, I think there are often stronger arguments for faith in something than to rely solely on the banalities of reason which possesses its own self-denying faith. That said I am opposed to organized religion, but ask of those who are part of any to appreciate that you do not get to pick and choose what parts of the dogma suits you and then still call yourself Roman Catholic. Thats delusional. For Roman Catholics you must obey what the pope decrees, that is the embodiment of Christ’s word, when he speaks ex cathedra that is as good as Jesus talking. and yet how many still abide by his call against contraceptives?
This isn’t even a rational attack, I do not need to be challenged as an atheist living in denial of my own flights of fancy. This is you not living up to your standard, the one you identify with.
Like Bill Maher, I leave open the possibility of belief, nothing more.
Posted by rot on June 8th, 2008@ “six million jews?”
I don’t even think the theists believe this one. This is just a canard they drag out because they know it drives us up the wall.
Hitler’s frequent appeals to a deity to justify is misdeads are well documented.
Just out of curiosity what about Jay Cheel’s specific brand of atheism do find most desirable? Or is it just in general you wish everyone were more like Jay?
Posted by Rusty James on June 8th, 2008“Rense is where its at.”
Oh god. those morons may be even worse. They still believe the Larry Sinclair story and have it on the main page still, even though he’s failed lie detector tests. Way to live among the lunatic fringe.
Dungbeetle, first off Maher is closer to libertarian than communist, easily.
“I wish they would make a movie about the religion of atheism.”
Expelled tried to include stuff like this. Its all a bunch of crap anyways, since atheism is the lack of theism, lack of belief/religion/dogma. Atheism is as much a religion as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. Unless you know better than I, an atheist, about my own beliefs, and can explain to me what the tenets of my ‘religion’ are. Are you telling me I’m a communist, or a Nazi, a nihilist even?
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008“Hitler’s frequent appeals to a deity to justify is misdeads are well documented.”
Not only did Hitler invoke the Catholic church to justify his actions, the German people were deeply religious and the army had “god with us” on their belts.
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rantpix/gott_mit_uns.jpg
“The movie could also show how atheist intolerance has led to the murder of nearly a million people”
Stalin unlike Hitler was actually an atheist, but even then. so what? One, if you’re accepting that argumetn, then you thus accept Christianity as responsible for the Iraq war, for the crusades, and god as the ultimate murder for the flood. Are you willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater to make some point? And besides, Communism is its own dogma, with an atheist position only taken because religion is a threat to the dogma. Its hardly a central tenet to the general communist premise.
stick that up your ass, Lord Dung.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008“I am pro-faith, I think there are often stronger arguments for faith in something than to rely solely on the banalities of reason which possesses its own self-denying faith.”
There’s religious faith and hope and then theres everyday faith and hope, faith in manking, faith that people will do the right thing. I hope you’re not suggesting atheism turns us into Ayn Rand-ish objectivists with no care for each other or the world.
“I leave open the possibility of belief”
What do you mean by something like this? As far as I’m concerned, we don’t choose our beliefs – you either believe or you dont, you are convinced by the evidence and keep faith to combat arguments against it, or you are unconvinced. To me, any Christian who calls themself such and goes through the motions, but deep inside isn’t convinced… they have religion, but they do not have belief.
Or are you getting into the whole agnostic/atheist thing, because thats a whole other world with different reasons for labels. Theres gnosticism and agnosticism which deals with what you know, and then there’s atheism and theism which is what you believe. Atheist/Agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms. If you have not accepted any religious belief, you are an atheist. if you admit you do not know for sure, you are also an agnostic. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. There are also agnostic theists, gnostic theists (those that claim to ‘know’) and gnostic atheists. The gnostics are more annoying, but even then theres parsing of words and subjective definitions of what it means to ‘know’ something. But even Richard Dawkins pretty much identifies with the agnostic atheists.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008fanaticism in any guise is bad. There are fanatic atheists as well… I mean I think there are atheistic scientists that are fucking up the world and putting all of our lives at risk because they think they got the universe figured out.
Posted by rot on June 8th, 2008“There are fanatic atheists as well.”
I don’t know who the hell suicide bombs in the name of atheism. You’re going to have to give me examples of what you mean, especially of “putting our lives at risk because they think they got the universe figured out.” Define “fanatic”, because to me it sounds like you’re using it to describe a staunch advocate of any belief. Are we all supposed to be middle of the road moderates who belief the truth lies in the middle of any two arguments? thats not the way things are. There is either a god, or there isn’t.
There’s bad people in the world of all stipes, but religion is the only thing I know that can make good people do evil things.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008It makes no sense not to be an agnostic, it’s just pointless to constantly label everything, so we just say atheists and get on with our lives.
“I mean I think there are atheistic scientists that are fucking up the world and putting all of our lives at risk because they think they got the universe figured out.”
I would hardly blame stupidity on atheism. If anything, it’s the religious idiots who have it all figured out. Any scientist worth his salt would admit that he hasn’t got the universe figured out, if some scientist is an idiot and happens to be an atheist then so be it, but surely they aren’t going “I can do this only because I don’t believe in God. If I believed in God I would never attempt because the book says its illegal.” If so, I would take a good look into wether or not it’s a genuine scientist.
Posted by Henrik on June 8th, 2008I will probably see this. But I just find Bill Maher to be such a smarmy, arrogant fuck. I really can’t stand him.
Posted by Jon Rocks on June 8th, 2008@Goon,
I mean tomorrow I could become a Buddhist, a Christian, whatever, I leave open that possibility, I do not exclude anything. I do not pretend to know the answers to the big questions that religion strives to accommodate. I guess in that respect it makes me agnostic, but like I said, that can change pretty fast. I do believe in things that science is incapable of explaining, I also believe there is a level of complexity to human consciousness that A.I. cannot reproduce. There is something that can be perceived as ’spiritual’ to the way we live day to day, and there are some that want to quantify it, want to apply (falsely!) scientific rigor to cognition and give the tired, near Bush-level rhetoric that the bullshit we conduct today will be clearer in some future utopic date in time. I do not dare explain this ’spiritual’ element, hence I leave it open… and if it comes to me in some revelation than I will behave accordingly.
To paraphrase Pessoa, I don’t believe in God, and do not see anything worthwhile to worship in humanity, so I am left with aesthetic contemplation as my link to the spiritual.
Posted by rot on June 8th, 2008“I mean tomorrow I could become a Buddhist, a Christian, whatever, I leave open that possibility, I do not exclude anything.”
Neither do I. Just because I’m an atheist doesnt mean I have some commitment to it. Again, theres no dogma.
However to become a Buddhist or Christian or whatever, I require EVIDENCE. Spirituality and religion are somewhat separate. I mean, Sam Harris is one of the most reknowned atheists and he’s big into spirituality and yoga and a lot of other stuff.
“I do not pretend to know the answers to the big questions that religion strives to accommodate. I guess in that respect it makes me agnostic, but like I said, that can change pretty fast.”
It doesnt matter how fast it can change. If you agree that you dont know, and if you have not subscribed to any belief system, for the time being, hate to break it to you, you are by definition, an agnostic atheist. Welcome!
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008First off, Goon..go fuck your mother.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008what would jesus post, lord dungbeetle?
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008I mentioned this elsewhere but how about the Hadron Collider experiment that is about to occur this August.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
if this is not the most incredible bit of hubris I don’t know what is. They rely on theoretical science regarding quantities of energy that they have no demonstrations of, that is a bunch of mathematical equations despite the well known incongruence between mathematics and natural phenomena, something indisputably established in Godel’s Theorem, that formal systems will ALWAYS be incomplete, and thus any application to our universe will be always approximate, and beyond the scope of number-crunching. On a series of hunches they are are willing to conduct an experiment that could possibly cause a doomsday scenario for planet Earth, including such possibilities as micro-black holes and strangelets… which appear to be something similar to Vonnegut’s fictional ice-nine.
and don’t get me started on cloning…
I used to be a passionate rationalist, but I have since realized the folly of it. Its a religion that is even more dangerous than Islam fundamentalists, because at least with the fundamentalist it is a known quantity that people politically fight against. Who fights against our own hubris and blind faith in scientific certitude? The average person believes in scientific realism despite very clear methodological proofs to its fallacy. People like the idea of science and what it does and do not want to get bogged down in the details, but the details indicate just how much of science is guesswork, and when you are willing to conduct experiments that can kill x number of people, yeah I call that a threat.
That said, I have my issues with the visible religious fanatics too.
Posted by rot on June 8th, 2008I agree with you Goon about atheism not necessarily having a dogma… it took me a while to work out a defense for radical skepticism in philosophical debates, you will find endless attacks on it, but it also came down to this, they usually presuppose some dogma or doctrine to it because you can label it as some thing. But radical skepticism is not a separate thing, its more like a parasite, it takes on whatever the other person’s opinion is, and so long as it has rules of defending itself it uses those rules to deconstruct itself. There is nothing left over. The same with undogmatic atheism, unless you start campaigning from this non-entity place. unless you over-emphasize the label. It really is nothing but the absence of something else. so in rebuke of Lord Dung, atheists bitch about religion because they only exist in relation to them.
Posted by rot on June 8th, 2008Second, this is pointless, you are all a bunch of faceless names on a film blog.
I just don’t have the energy to argue. I just like Filmjunk. I don’t bother people with my shit and I hate it when I’m told how to live or think. I do belive atheists have become very fanatical in their views and it approaches religious fervor. I think it’s great that you don’t believe in anything, what a wonderful, sexy time for all of you!
You are all correct other than laws, language, writing, architecture, record keeping, astronomy, trade, etc. religion has been good for absolutely nothing. Science for science’s sake is awesome. Clone a fucking tapeworm-man hybrid for all I care.
You are also right, Hitler was a deeply religious man as was his entire inner circle and they in no way used the common man’s religion as a motivation tool. Why did my grandfather have to renounce Catholicism when he joined the Waffen SS in 1943?…never mind…
I guess we simple folk get uppity when someone makes a movie that calls us stupid and demented. I suppose we deserve it for being so stupid!
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008I’m not so sure what that experiment really has to do with atheism. But yeah sure, scientists have done some stupid things. I mean you don’t have to dig that far, hello, atomic bomb. But again, considering atheism comes down to a matter of fact whether there is a god or not, that I care what is true, I can’t honor the slippery slope of disbelief to creating black holes.
“Its a religion that is even more dangerous than Islam fundamentalists, because at least with the fundamentalist it is a known quantity that people politically fight against.”
First off the latter half is a joke considering you can’t be an atheist and get elected to office in America. In fact, 10 states have it in their constitutions that you cannot run for office without religious belief.
Moderate faith can often justify fanaticism simply by association. A wacko will cite the number of christians in america despite a small minority having their specific views. Even though it happens, its not fair to blame Barack Obama’s beliefs for Pat Robertson’s.
Likewise tossing rational thinking and desire for evidence in with “mad science” reeks of bullshit to me.
You’re playing guilt by association, and again, going into subjective opinions. Atheism does not equal science does not equal hardcore rationalism. Atheism equals lack of belief, period. In fact, most atheism is humanist – ethical and in support of justice – rather than the cold, mechanical Ayn Rand esque philosophy.
Your jumps from atheism to any other set of beliefs, is the real ‘folly’ here. atheism is a position on one issue, period – god or not – anything else anyone wants to do/believe is their business.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008“not necessarily having a dogma”
screw necessarily. not having a dogma, period. you act like every atheist has a skeptic mindset, or is interested in science, when theres so many other reasons to disbelieve. i believe the logical reasoning may be among the best reasons to disbelieve religion, however again, considering its a matter of being convinced of belief or not, how you can attach a dogma at all is just absurd to me.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008Dung, I think my comment fell off the earth, and it was long, so heres the jist of it.
“I guess we simple folk get uppity when someone makes a movie that calls us stupid and demented.”
You made posts pushing commies/nazis/nihilists simply by association. recognize the irony and practise what you preach.
if you really dont want to argue, then stop arguing. anything else will simply seem like an excuse to avoid addressing more explicit points/debunking of claims.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008scientists are rationalists, I mean how else would you characterize what they do? Do they deal directly with the question of God? They quantify that area of unknown that religion interprets as God and operates within it, their actions with cloning for example are direct statements of atheism. If they believed in God would they have the hubris of creating a human life? No they do it because they do not believe in God, they are accidental atheists, maybe but they remain atheists.
a person who rapes women is still a rapist whether or not he thinks of himself as one.
Posted by rot on June 8th, 2008“I mean how else would you characterize what they do?”
Well lets see, a botanist studies plants, and an archaeologist studies fossils, and a historian looks at history, and astronomers track the cosmos, and lets see… these and so many other studies, together, have uncovered empirical evidence that flies in the face of Biblical claims. As such I can come to a reasonable conclusion that the god of the bible does not exist, and that other religions that cant produce empirical evidence justify disbelief, and that for any other claim i simply dont know and dont believe.
This has nothing to do with some douchebag in a lab coat who thinks he can create black holes, or has a formula of what to do if theres a train coming and you have to choose between derailing it or saving the woman tied to the tracks.
“their actions with cloning for example are direct statements of atheism.
If they believed in God would they have the hubris of creating a human life?”
Your point is moot. if the bible said cloning was okay, they’d be doing it anyways. it could also only mean they care more about knowledge than they do about god – just as a horny teenager may be a christian but still cares more about getting laid. that isnt a statement against faith. when you think of the billions of people out there who do things against their religion but still profess belief, that there are major scientists within the Human Genome project who consider themselves devout christians, the conclusions you make are ridiculous.
“No they do it because they do not believe in God, they are accidental atheists, maybe but they remain atheists.”
again, you are being ridiculous, dare I say even stupid, here. Where is the tenet, where is the dogma, that says to do any of this? Is a lack of dogma about cloning also an endorsement of it? N. O. NO. I dont see anything in the Tao about cloning either, I dont think Buddhism has a problem with it, I suppose Taoism is a ‘rapist’ as well. I mean seriously, that you even went with that analogy, I’m sorry man, as far as I’m concerned your loose guilt by association is monstrous.
What you’re saying here impugning atheism by bringing up cloning, is just as loose and wrong as Dungs Nazi/Commie bit. You’re using the same foul logic with a different set of associations.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008Damn sucked in again….The Communists, who were atheists, killed religious people because they were religious. The Nazis, who were atheists (argue all you want, the Nazi Party had no religion)killed Jews and Catholics because of their faith. No atheists were killed in either regime because of their beliefs or lack of or whatever you say. I did not state that all atheists were Nazis or Communists.
I point out that many religious people have been killed not only by religious people of differing faiths, but also by those who are atheists.
All of that ethical atheism bullshit aside, no human is above savagery, faithful or not…not Al Qaeda and not the Khmer Rouge. My whole point was: Bill Maher, your shit stinks too.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008the communists saw the religious as a threat to communism. so every nazi was an atheist? you expect us to believe that? come on…
listen, lets say every atheist was as bad as hitler, that doesnt make jesus exist. sorry, but thats the way it is. if scientists blow up the world tomorrow with black hole experiments, it doesnt make your religion more true. i know you wan tto think its either/or, that if you can malign atheists/atheism that you ‘win’, but thats not the way facts work.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008First off, I’m not Christian, so let’s let that shit die. I believe he existed as a person, I think the historical record is strong that he was a real man…debate the rest.
I didn’t make a science-religion argument, I am for science. If scientists blow up the world tomorrow with black hole experiments it doesn’t make any religion less true. No one can prove a god or disprove a god so isn’t it pointless to mock others on a hunch. I don’t fuck with atheists, so don’t fuck with me, but assholes like Bill Maher can’t leave people alone. If we are all simple children like Henrik posits, why spoil it for us? Why not leave us in peace?
Not every Nazi was an atheist, just like every soldier in Iraq is not a Republican. One of the goals of both ideologies was the destruction of churches and replacing it with the state. Okay, they saw religion as a threat and killed a fuck load of people, how is that different? Are you saying the churches made the Commies kill them? Why can’t you except this? I don’t see how it weakens your platform in any way.
I know most atheists see themselves as evolved and more enlightened, but they are not. The last few atheist governments were complete disasters. Even if you don’t personally believe in religion do you not see it’s social and cultural value?
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008accept not except
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008yet another post i made disappeared. again. what gives sean? i logged in and its not even in the moderation queue.
so quickly:
1) so what religion are you then? do you have empirical evidence for it, and if not, why am i not justified to disbelieve it?
2) so how did Nazism rise to power if they couldnt yet enforce their ‘atheism’? how do you reconcile with the historical hatred of jews in Europe by christians? hitler was a catholic until catholics opposed him, courting the church to get in line as long as he could. some did fall in line, the vatican didnt step up to the plate, and those that fought back where pretty much doomed. but through it all its evident to me Hitler believed in God, and that God was on his side.
And you’re telling me that these forced ‘renouncements’ mean anything? You either believe something or you dont. you dont stop believing in God just because someone says so. The Nazis were a christian nation before, during and after Hitler, period, and even in times where the actual church was being attacked, these people still acted like animals.
but how is it different? because it was a political dogma, not a religious one. atheism was a side effect of the larger problem. their movements were not an act of disbelief, they were an act of nationalist self worship. unless you want to show HOW a lack of belief in god leads to communism or vice versa, you are simply making argument by association.
which again, even if all atheists were all bad people, does nothing to verify any religion.
3) religion is quaint and can have cultural value. that doesnt make it true nor does it justify holding delusional beliefs. pretty paintings and sculptures do not make up for using religion to deny women, gays, etc their rights.
4) i dont find any social value in religion that cant be covered through secular golden rule logic.
5) Scandinavian countries are largely atheistic, peaceful, successful governments, nations with the highest quality of life in the world.
Dungy, play along for a second and hypothetically agree that all man made religion is a lie. Why should we permit lies to go on unchallenged, even if it does good in some peoples lives? Why should we placate religion, which islam and christianity for example, believe all non followers of deserve nothing but eternal torment?
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008Lord Dungbeetle, it’s not like religion has been off to the side minding its own business for the last thousand years. It’s about time we got rid of the religious aspects of our holidays, the constant mentioning of God in places where it doesn’t belong etc.
If you kids want to play in your sandbox with your imaginary friends that’s fine, but then don’t get upset if I don’t want your fucking churches ringing bells waking me up on a sunday morning.
Posted by Henrik on June 8th, 2008Dungy, I think people are entitled to believe anything they want so long as it doesnt harm anyone else. But your rights end where mine begin, which means bringing things into government that are ONLY based on religion, should be opposed. which means that we dont oppress the minority on the whim of the majority.
atheists are the minority. christians are the majority. can you understand how it feels like to be beaten with a stick all day, and when we ask them to stop, hear them complain that they are being oppressed?
I’d love it if people gave up religion, but I dont want anyone to give it up by force. It simply doesnt work. But its so personal to people, that doing something like removing forced prayer in schools is perceived by christians ironically as us forcing you to give up religion… when we’re just stopping you from hitting us with that stick. nobody removed prayer from schools, they removed forced prayer. you can pray your way through any test you did not study for, you can pray at your locker that you’ll remember the combination, nobody is stopping you unless you’re say, falling to your knews and praying out loud in class and being disruptive.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008This dispute can only be settled by Reed Farrington.
Posted by ProjectGenesisGangster on June 8th, 20081. None-ya, and you are justified to disbelieve. Do you have evidence god doesn’t exist?
2. Hitler was born a Catholic, doesn’t mean he was one. He never took the sacraments and never made confession. Obama was born a muslim but he’s not. The Catholics put a stop to the T-4 Program. The Vatican did protest and did aid many Jews, but they were surrounded by Facists and had no army. What Hitler said in public speeches greatly differed from he wrote, discussed with Nazi Party members and his behavior clearly was unreligious. He took no audience with religious leaders once in power, except for the Mufti of Palestine. I think the Hitler in power was the real Hitler.
Germany was a Christian nation yes, however Hitler had long term plans and they were being implemented in stages. He didn’t just kill Jews right away, the man was systematic. Eventually all churches would be destroyed, the SS was to be the new order, it was to be the civil government, the political party and the army. The regular people were needed to achieve this due to the massive amount of manpower that would be required. By 1943, all SS men were required to have no religion other than service to the Reich. You could not be Allgemine SS and go to church.
Hitler was evil and happened to athiest, he did not act alone…why is that damning to you? White guys owned slaves and killed Indians, it doesn’t hurt my whiteness.
You like the word dogma.
I am not making an argument of association. Atheists in practice, fuck theory, seek to destroy religion, however peacefully. When you attack religion, you destroy a main pillar of society. Atheism is the negative, non belief versus belief, the con to the pro.
One stated goal of Communism is the destruction of religion. The Communist ideology is an atheist ideology. Killing the religious is a tenant of that ideology. That is not association. It is not association when a group says “we are atheist and if you are theist we will wipe you out”..I think it is pretty clear.
3. Atheists also deny people rights. Atheism produces nothing as it is a non-entity. All the danger of religion with none of the value…..awesome!
Secularism is just as quaint to billions of people.
4. That secular logic was derived and built upon the back of religion. Show me an atheist code of morality that wasn’t derived from religion.
5. I know of no study that shows Scandinavian countries are largely atheistic. How long have they been democratic and free? How long ago was WW2? Choosing four irrelevent countries as your paragon of atheism is probably not the best argument. I can cite many official atheist nations that are and were completely backward and a failure in every sense. They were and are particularly brutal to people. You don’t have to worry about some stupid preacher in North Korea though!
Logically though, you can’t win, logically you can say there is no proof that god exists but you can’t disprove it either. You may say “I have found no evidence of god’s existence” but not “I have evidence that god does not exist”. I can think it, say it and conceptualize it so therefore it may exist. We took the trouble to think it up and evolution has allowed us to waste so much effort on it (millions of years) and you just say “naw”?
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008Henrik, if you want to work on Christmas, go right ahead. I’m not Christian and I like Christmas. Most holidays have been so commercialized, I don’t find any of them particulary religious. I like fucking gifts, I got a PS3 on Christmas..I like the fatman in a suit…the bunny with a basket. It’s fucking tradition, if don’t believe it why do you care? I don’t think Spiderman is real but I like the film and comic.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008Would I still get a Christmas tree?
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008“None-ya”
how are you not an atheist, then?
“and you are justified to disbelieve. Do you have evidence god doesn’t exist?”
I’m not the one making the extraordinary claim, the onus isn’t on me to prove anything. If I told you I have a unicorn in my basement, do you have to prove I don’t? Unless I do, you are justified to disbelieve. And as I said earlier, for various reasons from archeology to other parts of history, botany, astrology, they make a case of a world history that is in conflict with christianity’s view.
“Hitler was born a Catholic, doesn’t mean he was one. He never took the sacraments and never made confession. Obama was born a muslim but he’s not.”
In Mein Kampf hitler details his faith and why he believes Jesus wasnt a jew, etc. If you choose to disbelieve him fine, he certainly didnt act the way we think christians should, but so what? so do a lot of people of faith. Neither is ‘born a catholic/muslim’ at all, no more than any child is born a liberal or conservative. those are things you either choose or come to believe on your own.
more later.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008Lord Dungbeetle you’re simply too stereotypical to spend time on. I can’t believe that once again people defend religion with the argument that hitler killed religious people (along with all the atheists he also killed). Bill O’Reilly would be proud of you.
Posted by Henrik on June 8th, 2008Henrik,
Why am I sterotypical? Because I disagree? I’m not the one with a movie mocking people.
Hitler was an atheist who killed religious people and non religious people, especially when he invaded Stalinist Soviet territory.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 8th, 2008alright i made another long post but it disappeared again. i should have copied it before hitting post.
this is repetitive LD, no matter how much evidence there was of religion in Hitlers life and in the lives of Germans, no matter how documented religion affected Nazis rise to power, you will push the same line. You will continue to claim its my responsibility to disprove Jesus and Santa Claus rather than it being the onus of those making the extraordinary claim. You will continue to bash atheism even though its clear you are one yourself, a self hating one at that. Your’e either trolling or just plain fucked in the head. Good day.
On an unrelated note, your website is ass.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008btw, stats:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
as Henrik can confirm (he’s Scandinavian, and the #3 country on that list), the scandinavian ones have some polls on the lower end because when you are born they register you into the church against your will.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008I dont knwo what happened to your last post, LD, its… gone. i tried to cut/paste it but i hit refresh and its gone. hitler was all over the place the entire time. while you are claiming he made soandso dencounce his faith…
recovering an older post. since you insist Hitler was an atheist – im still not sure you mean ‘once’ or ‘always’. i must continue to insist there is much you are ignoring. i saw your quotes you lifted from the early 40s that he made in private… but I also submit:
The Nazis had amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: “Gott mit uns” (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. Citizens were told by both state and church to blindly follow all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.
Prayers were mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He criminalized homosexuality.
You want to say all this time he was secretly just using people. Maybe by the end, but it takes the people to follow out his orders, you have tried to paint them as atheists as well but its not going to fly. I know my history here. Those same tapes you quoted from 41-42 have him also saying that The Ten Commandments are perfect and are still his moral code, and around the same time he condemned atheistic jews for not only being jews, but abandoning their god.
Hitler was baptized in Austria, an altar boy in his youth, and confirmed as a “soldier of Christ” in that church. The worst doctrines of that church never left him. He church’s liturgy contained the words, “perfidious Jew.” which stayed there until 1961. it was this background that led him to tell people that Jews lied about Jesus being one of them. (Perfidy means treachery, btw)
Hatred of Jews was the norm in Catholic/Lutheran Germany. Hitler praised Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews and also condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption. This partially explains Hitlers duplicitous critique of the church over the years. but like Lutehr, Hitler supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves,” and “We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them.”
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. “… I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.” He quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.
He also said, in private: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” He never left the catholic church even despite his weird actions, and the church never left him. The church was banning book after book but wouldnt excommunicate hitler or ban Mein Kampf. Popes contracted with Hitler Franco and Mussolini, giving them veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy.
Hitlers most acclaimed biographer John Toland said: “Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god…”
For him to be an atheist all that time would require a hell of a lot more effort and 24/7 acting than I think anyone is capable of, devoted and with a plan from a very young age. I’m sorry, but your proposition and rewriting of history LD, is hard to swallow. Hitler was a complex tantrum spewing hate filled man who at some times seemed non-religious and at other times both publicly and privately was all about religion. I look at his whole life and believe he was more religious that irreligoius, that if he abandoned religion the evidence points to his disillusionment being deep into the tail end of his reign. furthermore, clearly by his actions it was the way of the people and they didnt recognize the conflicts of their actions with their supposed beliefs. The anti-Jewish sentiment throughout Germany corrupted their religion. It was corrupt before hitler even got to it, not representative of the christianity most people believe, but it was deeply held religious belief nonetheless. if you dont think this is a fair assessment then so be it, but thats my last word on it.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008Wow. Late to the party on this one. Can’t really get into a hot and heavy thesim debate, ’cause religion simply ain’t my cup of tea.
@Henrik – “Any scientist worth his salt would admit that he hasn’t got the universe figured out, if some scientist is an idiot and happens to be an atheist then so be it,”
I agree strongly with the first part of that sentence. My day-job is a ‘materials chemist’ and I have a science background, degree and whatnot. I work in a ridiculously educated workplace, a majority of PhDs, etc. and you’d be surprised (or maybe not) that there is a large and fairly hard-core christian + Jewish + other religion contingents within the place.
Wasn’t it Einstein that said, “Religion without Science is daft, but science without religion is lame?”
I find the phrase militantly atheist or atheist fundamentalism to be stemming from already paranoid religion denominations that can’t get their head around the rise of simply secular lifestyles. It’s the Internet and Ipods and otherwise general 1st world sense of isolation, methinks anyway, but leave it to even somewhat rational churches to go on a crusade against “atheist fundamentalism”
On Bill Maher. I guess he is entertaining enough, but I find him smug even as I agree with him. Like Michael Moore and other liberal ‘personalities’ he makes me often embarrassed to share the same views, but I guess I just label him as ‘mostly harmless’
As you can see I have no point, just rambling after coming into the fray after all this (My IP is banned at work. boo. less Filmjunk for me).
Let us also agree that the argument/debate in most, if not all comment sections and forums, is more or less finished once “Hitler” or “Nazis” come in as a talking point…
Have fun Gents.
Posted by Kurt on June 8th, 2008“On Bill Maher. I guess he is entertaining enough, but I find him smug even as I agree with him. Like Michael Moore and other liberal ‘personalities’ he makes me often embarrassed to share the same views, but I guess I just label him as ‘mostly harmless’”
I agree he’s a dickhead, but he’s kind of “owned” it and recognizes it. Like Chris Hitchens, he’s likeable and funny when you’re on the same team, and you want to wring his neck when you’re not.
Posted by Goon on June 8th, 2008“…is more or less finished once “Hitler†or “Nazis†come in as a talking point…”
I’m more concerned that I’ve apparently pissed LD off to the degree that he feels the need to visit my personal site a dozen times over the course of 8 hours. (yes, I have a tracker) Please don’t make 15 hour trips up from Tampa to settle an internet argument. Let it go. I’m sure there’s a post about Star Wars somewhere we can argue about instead.
Posted by Goon on June 9th, 2008Ooops, the Einstein quote was “Blind” not “Daft”
Posted by Kurt on June 9th, 2008Religion without Science is blind, but science without religion is lame.
(third times a charm)
Posted by Kurt on June 9th, 2008One thing is for certain….my website is ass
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 9th, 2008Goon, Ontario is too far for me. I was just checking out your work. I want to commission a picture of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung playing poker in heaven.
Although I will forever disagree with you about Hitler being an atheist, and although we have violated Godwin’s Law, I think we can agree that we are both morons for putting this much effort into this argument.
Quit picking on my website.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on June 9th, 2008I thought I was clear enough Goon, but I guess not. I will make my case as concise as possible:
Scientists are bound by what can be rationally demonstrable.
Scientists employ their work upon the known universe.
Theologians are not bound by what can be rationally demonstrable.
Theologians also employ their work upon the known universe.
Both approach similar objects but with different perspectives. I used cloning as a very clear example of this because it is understood by most religions that there is more than the biological at work in creating a person, but science has no time for anything but that which they can quantify.
You with me so far?
To say that science has nothing to do with religion is to say that shade has nothing to do with light. You can compartmentalize them all you want in your delightful labels, they both have opinions about what the known universe consists of. Science, through its actions, through its most basic dogma, rejects the irrational, which includes among other things the presence of a Deity as it encroaches upon the same space that theology claims knowledge of. I am amazed you would even question this… makes me wonder how dogmatic you actually are?
You want atheism to be a one question significance, and I used the analogy of the rapist correctly, its like all you have to do is answer the question are you an atheist or not and that is that, as if behavior, conduct, had nothing to do with the label. A scientist’s conduct rejects God with every quantification of the known universe, it is the embodiment of the atheistic approach.
I suppose evolution and intelligent design is not really a dispute at all, the distinction is entirely between atheism and theism. Even if you say they are holding out the possibility of God, so they are only agnostic that is bullshit as well, the irrational cannot be factored into the equation.
As for the notion of scientists who are religious, humans are capable of doublethink, capable of paradoxes, capable of believing one thing one moment and another the next. They are entirely deluding themselves if they believe what they are doing has no bearing in the religious debate. Christ everything we do can be thought of as having an opinion on the issue of theology, an atheist is an atheist in action as much as thought. The mere decision to not go to church on Sunday is a denial of some form of religion. With scientists it is more explicit because they are attempting there Tower of Babel to rival that of God… and for the most part they are successful, science is truly the deity of this century. The faith in it is ridiculous.
Posted by rot on June 9th, 2008Bill Mahrer isn’t liberal, he’s a Libertarian. It’s the opposite end of the spectrum. He’s also a douchebag, those of which can be found any where along the political and ideological spectrum.
Posted by Matt Gamble on June 9th, 2008rot your post reads like you’re the guy who walks into a philosophy class and starts telling the teacher that teaching is futile, becase there’s no way of telling wether or not you or he/she is real, if the tables are real, if the books are real, or if the world even exists properly.
If you’re going to put your faith in anything, might as well put it in humans, since they for all intents and purposes, exist untill proven otherwise.
Posted by Henrik on June 9th, 2008philosophy class is futile. Wittgenstein made a pretty significant point about that.
To prove that scientific realism is a fallacy all I have to do is look at the methodology of scientific endeavour and show its dependence on mathematics, and formal systems makes it vulnerable to Godel’s Theorem, in which case there will always be an incompleteness to the attempt at quantifying reality… therefore fundamentally scientific realism is false. To get around that fallacy you would have to undue Godel’s Theorem which from every case I am aware of is impossible, such is the genius of the theorem.
Not unlike the religious fanatics that pick and choose what aspects fo reality substantiate their faith, scientific realists do the same with mathematics, picking and choosing which they like and which is consistent with the preconceptions of the universe, whether or not they conflict.
science is science only in an instrumental sense, it should offer no ideology about what the universe is, and yet that is what scientific realism is, and what gets people upset whenever I challenge it.
and Henrik, did you read the link about the Hadron Collider, Humans are willing to risk a doomsday scenario, however slim (by their incomplete calculations)… my faith in humanity is less than that of some spiritual being. with humanity I can see the mistakes clearly.
Posted by rot on June 9th, 2008to be absolutely clear because I know how these things get misinterpreted… I am not against science, I am against the fanaticism that propels its culture. I am against the strand of thinking known as scientific realism, which justifies ludicrous feats of hubris like cloning and the Hadron collider. They are the equivalents of suicide bombers in religious sects, worse like I said because most people are unaware that no one is steering the ship, and the money and gull are unprecedented.
science has uses, but it should also have limitations. it should be a tool that we use, not something that uses us… to the point we destroy ourselves over it.
Posted by rot on June 9th, 2008No point in existing if not to test new ground and make new discoveries. Remember, people said that the train was not possible, because physics would rip people apart if they were to travel at such speeds. Fear of science is nothing new.
Cloning in the Arnold Schwarzenegger sense (The 6th Day. ‘Cool’ anyone?) seems absolutely horrifying I agree, but just because some crazy idiots (usually cults based in some sort of weird worship) claim to have created doomsday machines and superhumans, we should not put the kibosh on scientific research.
Scientific research is driven first and foremost by people who enjoy doing it, second by curiosity. There is a drive to know more, a need to answer questions which you may say ‘uses us’, but where do you define what is based in the simple enjoyment of doing something, be it science or art or craftsmanship, and where somebody feels a need to test just to test? Scientific research is rarely pointless.
It seems your point is more or less that we can’t be sure that the answers are right anyway, so why risk anything in the pursuit of them? For that, I will reiterate that reality, for purpose of existing as a human being I’d say you have to accept this, exists, and if it claims to work in a certain way (ie. gravity) we’re better off if we accept it and work around it. Like I said, things exist untill proven otherwise.
Posted by Henrik on June 9th, 2008tell me Henrik what percentage of probability for a doomsday scenario occuring is acceptable for the sake of knowing whether or not string theory is justified?
ludicrous.
Our curiosity will be the end of us because we are not grown up enough to acknowledge moral boundaries for our actions.
The people who rage against religious fanaticism yet turn a blind eye to the same in science need to get their heads examined. The greatest fear of religious fanatics is they get there hands on nuclear weapons… well who put that weapon on the table in the first place?
Ren and Stimpy had a great gag where Stimpy was curious to push the History eraser button and Ren kept telling him not to, and what did he do, he pushed it and everything went up in smoke. Thats untethered science in a nutshell. No amount of airplane crashes can amount to the devastation afforded the pursuit of knowledge.
It doesn’t help either that morality has left the political sphere now too, a corporation decides what is right or wrong.
Posted by rot on June 9th, 2008political fanaticism, yet again the problem.
Well, in my opinion the pursuit of knowledge is the only thing that can justify human consciousness. So I’d rather have us annihilated in pursuing knowledge than have us exist forever in ignorance.
Posted by Henrik on June 9th, 2008btw regarding the hadron collider, there is a court case in motion to stop it because of the three doomsday scenarios it could pose.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/27/2033218&from=rss
and Henrik I am convinced mankind will not rest until it annhilates itself and its statements like your most recent which only further justify my concern.
Posted by rot on June 9th, 2008Why are you concerned with the annihilation of man? We don’t deserve special treatment, and the only thing we have over animals is our consciousness. Why should we restrict the expansion of it just to preserve ourselves? It’s much more disheartening that we will die because of something as pointless as greed, which is much more likely.
Posted by Henrik on June 9th, 2008You’re right Henrik because our consciousness extends beyond our mortal bodies… now you have talked yourself into religion!
Posted by rot on June 9th, 2008well LD, you did bring it up. i entertained your notions and its getting into circle jerk.
rot, what can i say, i think you’re redefining things to fit your view. worse off, sorry, i dont find the hadron thing very interesting today, and am willing to walk away for now and help let this thread die.
Posted by Goon on June 9th, 2008Religion is guesswork. It doesn’t expand our consciousness it diminishes it with its nonsense answers that are very easy and comforting, but in the end may doom us (ie. not giving a fuck about global warming because jesus is coming anyway, and if he doesn’t before you die, as long as you praise him everyday when you die it gets much better, so why bother?). I think Marx was right, but to update him a bit, religion is fast-food for the mind.
Posted by Henrik on June 9th, 2008At your request, ProjectGenesisGangster, I will settle this dispute.
I spoke to God, but she says she doesn’t exist.
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 9th, 2008I still wish Lord Beetle told us what he liked so much about Jay’s specific brand of atheism
Posted by Rusty James on June 9th, 2008What part of “Humans make up gods” do some people not get. Every culture all over the world independantly of each other all had the human instinct to create some magical creature(s) to explain how we got here and to provide hope that there is a life after death. It’s all part of the survival instict. It’s the 21st century people…. let’s try to catch up.
Posted by bobcarp on June 16th, 2008Leave a Reply