RSS Feed
"Religulous": Cinematic New Atheism
How to describe Bill Maher's new documentary, Religulous? Let's see. How about this: like screaming "suicide bomber!" in a movie theater.
First, a helpful technical suggestion to all other New Atheists who may be working on anti-religious documentaries: only Borat is Borat. Maher's film is clearly indebted to the cringe-comedy stylings of the inimitable Sacha Baron Cohen. It too engages in protracted guerilla-interviews with unsuspecting subjects. Religulous even shares a director, Larry Charles, with the movie that immortalized phrases such as "It's a nice" and "hand love."
But Cohen's improvisational genius--note this-- is singular: at the moment when the interview is imploding, at the moment when the victim is becoming surly and uncooperative, Cohen always knows how to make just the right lunatic quip to prolong the festivities (think of Ali G responding to a testy Andy Rooney: "Is it 'cuz I's' black?" )
Maher, a talented stand-up performer, is simply not skilled at, or comfortable with, rapidly converting ideological bile into comedy gold. In one scene where he is almost cruelly antagonizing some sort of fellowship of Christian truckers, a beefy driver walks out the door in protest. He exits unmolested. Daredevil Borat would have tried to extend the encounter--perhaps by questioning the trucker's manhood or challenging him to a duel (using tasers, of course).
Maher is no master of squirm comedy. Maybe this accounts for why Religulous is larded with soundtracks, stock movie footage, captions, sound effects, you name it. These are Maher's post-production "life lines"--gimmicks that help him cover up the fact that watching two ideologues run head first into one another is not inherently illuminating or pleasurable to watch.
And let there be no doubt, Maher is an ideologue (a point that Andrew Sullivan brought home in a recent exchange with the host of Real Time). His worldview and politics are decidedly New Atheist. This means that he must focus obsessively on religious extremists and oddballs. He must provoke and mock them.
And he must do so while maintaining the peculiar insistence that he actually understands their religion better than they do. Thus, he counters their assertions about the Bible with equally literalist counter-factuals. (Somebody buy him a book on the history of biblical interpretation, if only so he would stop assuming that all Jews and Christians read their Scriptures literally. Bill meet Philo of Alexandria. Philo. Bill.)
It also means that he must steadfastly avoid speaking to, or even thinking about, religious moderates. In accordance with the New Atheist creed, they are seen as enablers of religious zealots, or in Maher's phrase "mafia wives."
In one sequence, our narrator comes across two Catholic priests who share his skepticism about religious dogma. The host smiles goofily and expresses his approval. But the joke's on him. These priests are by no means unusual. Most Catholics, Jews and Protestants in America are at peace with science, modernity, secular government, and so forth. Maher could have found tens of millions more like them, had he bothered to look.
When all is said and done in 2008, nonbelievers will have questions: why were the atheists, always hot on the bestseller lists, so irrelevant this election season? Why did the presidential candidates and media ignore them? Why were their issues (e.g., separation of Church and State, the importance of public-school science curricula) so completely marginalized?
Well, Religulous may yield some answers. I often wonder if the New Atheists themselves understand how politically counter-productive their relentless mocking of moderates has been. The latter are everywhere locked in epic struggles with fundamentalists in their own traditions. Were New Atheists to ever think tactically, they might refer to those moderates not as "imbeciles," but "allies." Well, 2008 has been a wash; maybe some clever atheist will figure that out in 2012 and forge coalitions appropriately.
Again and again, throughout this predictable dirge of a movie, Maher insists that he has doubts and that living in a state of doubt is the proper way to go through life. Yet no matter how many joints he may smoke on screen, Maher is more of a moralist than a principled doubter. He would rather make An Important Point than let a scene play out to its funniest possible conclusion.
Further, he has no doubts whatsoever that the people whom he interviews are utterly contemptible (and in many cases they are). Confronted with this low-wattage selection of religious schmucks, Maher is free to sermonize condescendingly. The movie ends with an extended homily in which our wisecracking Virgil warns the religious to "grow up or die." In light of the current intellectual and political poverty of atheist thought, the sentiment might be just as well directed to nonbelievers.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
October 6, 2008; 10:38 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: The Financial Tsunami Drowning Poverty Agenda |
Next: The Joe Six-Pack Doctrine
Posted by: Anne | October 18, 2008 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I enjoyed Berlinerblau's assessment of Religulous. In some ways, I think it's of a piece with a review I did of the film for BustedHalo, the Paulists' web magazine:
http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/seductive-reductive-religulous/
Posted by: Greg Ruehlmann | October 16, 2008 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religulous... I will not pay to see this movie.
Donna Jaffke
Posted by: Donna | October 14, 2008 12:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Bobob | October 11, 2008 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I suggest HBO fire Bill Maher who I believe uses his "comedian" ways, but what he says are statements and not jokes. I will suspend my HBO until such time that he gets fired.
Posted by: F Filosa | October 8, 2008 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sez CCNL
Once again:
First a "heads up" by Jacques and now one by Anthony. Couple this with the "thumbs up" review by Roger Ebert, and this documentary is now a "must see". Bill Maher will enjoy the added profit. Hopefully, he will then do a sequel. Hmmm, what shall we call said sequel?? "Religtupidity" sounds good!!!
October 8, 2008 6:08 PM
___________________________________________
Although CCNL has posted thousands of comments on this forum, it is still not clear what he believes in. He attends the Catholic Church and even receives Communion, but attacks Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular all the time. He is a sworn enemy of Islam, and has nothing good to say about Hinduism and Buddhism. The only religion he does NOT mock is Judaism, and a Jewish Rabbi and Prof Crossan are the only two people for whom he has a good word to say.
Quizz: What is CCNL?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Maher is a bad comedian and a worse political commentator. How this guy stays on the air is one of the last great mysteries of the universe! Even the far lefties don't laugh at his inane humor anymore!
Posted by: donmac | October 8, 2008 9:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Read the parts of the bible that reference sex, and you'll discover it's an excellent animal husbandry guide for the humans of 6000 years ago."
On a serious note, it's possible that the Israelites were experiencing a massive crisis of either general underpopulation or specific infertility, much greater than the high rate of mortality that was normal for the time, and they were desperate to increase their numbers.
Posted by: Tonio | October 8, 2008 4:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Read the parts of the bible that reference sex, and you'll discover it's an excellent animal husbandry guide for the humans of 6000 years ago. "Since you're only going to live to 35, and half the babies that are born die early, all sex must be for procreation. No polygamy, because it narrows the gene pool. No homosexuality, because you can't make a baby that way. Same for oral. Same for masturbation. Your responsibility is to birth up your replacements. Have a nice day."
Posted by: Mark of Arlington | October 8, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Unacceptable Face of Capitalism
By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY
A British prime minister, Edward Heath, observed 25 years ago that a businessman, a truly horrible savage called “Tiny” Rowland, represented “the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism.” The description was fitting because Rowland was a perambulating piece of filth who had indulged in bribery, tax-dodging, and the general range of ingenious whizz-kid schemes designed to make viciously unscrupulous people rich and keep them that way. He had never been to business school but has been a model for those Masters of Business Administration who scrabble and grab for money without regard for moral principles – or the law of their land, if they think they can break it without being found out. There seem to be a lot of them like that, as we are now discovering.
Capitalism is marvelous, or so it is claimed by those who prosper mightily by using other people’s money to gamble on financial markets to make immense profits. But capitalism hasn’t been working very well of late, and countless thousands of ordinary people are poorer or even ruined and cheated of their promised pensions because they were sucked into disaster by sleek, fast-talking con-men/con-women. In the film ‘Trading Places’ one of the leading characters, the wonderful Eddie Murphy, tells a pair of self-satisfied, pompous, scheming, rich, amoral money-manipulators that “You’re nothing but a couple of bookies,” and rarely have more appropriate words been uttered to describe the antics of those whom Tom Wolfe so ironically dubbed ‘Masters of the Universe.’ You and I would call them squalid spivs – those who, according to the dictionary, “make a living by underhand dealings or swindling.”...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And to those who claim that anti-abortion for convenience amounts to being anti-woman, does being against abuse of children in families amount to being anti-family?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 5:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is somewhat insulting to those of us who took the pro-abortionist arguments based on the "Gospel" according to George Carlin, seriously, without knowing the source, to realize that we were merely responding to a comedian's take on abortion.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 1:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Watch the two videos which is the "Gospel" according to George Carlin. Anyone who has participated in the long drawn debate on abortion in this forum will realize that all the pro-abortionists posting on the On Faith forum have been quoting the "Gospel" according to George Carlin.
Quoting a comedian! Who'd have thunk!
"Pro-Life is Anti-Woman" in the "Gospel" according to George Carlin
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related
According to the "Gospel" of George Carlin, there is no such thing as "sanctity of life" either. Living people just make the thing up.
Applying that logic to abortion, it makes sense to conclude that pro-abortionists make the thing up that unborn children in the womb have no right to their lives, doesn't it?
According to Carlin, one may conclude "The "right to abortion" is a self-serving woman and man-made BS story!...The pro-abortionists made the whole fu***ng thing up!"
The Sanctity of Life according to the "Gospel" of George Carlin
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 12:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roe vs Wade
The position of the American Medical Association.
The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.
An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization":
"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime -- a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.
"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .
"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76.
The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id., at 28, 78.
In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less." 22 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871). It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it "be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child -- if that be possible," and calling "the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females -- aye, and men also, on this important question." ...
__________________________________________
Now watch the two videos which is the "Gospel" according to George Carlin. I realize now that all of the pro-abortionists posting on the On Faith forum having been quoting the "Gospel" of George Carlin.
Who'd have thunk!
Pro-Life is Anti-Woman in the "Gospel" according to George Carlin
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related
According to the "Gospel" of George Carlin, there is no such thing as "sanctity of life" either. Living people make the thing up.
Applying that logic to abortion, it makes sense to conclude that pro-abortionists make the thing up that unborn children in the womb have no right to their lives, doesn't it?
According to Carlin, "It is a self-serving man-made BS story!...We made the whole fu***ng thing up!"
The Sanctity of Life according to the "Gospel" of George Carlin
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 12:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
NB COLORADO:
Every time I read "anti-woman" knowing it is another word to justify abortion, my blood boils at the wilful ignorance of such a claim.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 11:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Matthew 25:31-46 TNIV
The Sheep and the Goats
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
_______________________________________________
BTW, the above verses are also found in the Quran, written in a slightly different way: people are divided to the right, left and middle groups.
Posted by: To Spiderman 1, 2, 3 etc | October 7, 2008 11:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
George makes it easy to understand...
Posted by: Keith | October 7, 2008 11:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I saw the movie today and thought it very entertaining. Really funny in parts and Maher didn't focus on any one faith. He was equally inquisitive about the 'weirdities' of organized religion.
I feel it's intelligent and mature to question. I'd rather be the shepard than the sheep. Lead rather than follow. God didn't pick sheep to lead she picked the ones that questioned her. Sheep are plentiful. Leaders, free and critical thinkers, are in limited supply.
Mahler isn't an aithiest. His mother is Jewish and he was raised Catholic. He just doesn't swallow the whole thing. Organized religion does have some bizzare traditions and rituals that have nothing to do with the bible. I'm sorry, the movie was funny and I don't consider myself an aithiest.
I believe in a high power but not necessarily like my neighbor does. I think the message was that most of the world believes in 'a god' or higher power. Religions all over the world are similar historically. Handed down verbally then written down by men. It's like sitting in a circle and starting a rumor. When it gets around to the last person it's a completely different rumor. The message gets distorted along the way. Love and tolerance is the message and organized religion just doesn't allow for it. One religion demands this, another religion demands that and everyone who disagrees is not getting to heaven. You talk about moderates. You can't hear them for the extremists. I'm talking about not only the Muslims but all of them and a good number of them right here in the good ol' USA. Anti gay, anti women, anti this, anti that. Live and let live!
Organized religions take themselves too seriously. Don't take the 'message' so literally. The problem with organized religion is that it focuses on the negative and that's why organized religion is losing memebership all over the world. Focus on the positive! Maher has a sense of humor and God made him. God must have a sense of humor too. Lighten up.
Posted by: NB Colorado | October 7, 2008 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Luke 10:25-37 NIV
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27 He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"
28 "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30 In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
35 The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36 "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37 The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "GO AND DO LIKEWISE." (Capitals mine for emphasis only.)
Posted by: To Spiderman 1, 2, 3 etc | October 7, 2008 11:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2, have you read the Sermon on the Mount, John 14-17, both words of Jesus, and letters of James, John and Peter, yet?
It would do you good to include what Jesus taught about Judgment Day.
Or are you still busy reading the highly allegorical Book of Revelations and spouting your own distorted interpretations?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 11:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist,
"How one see and regard God/s is how one see and regard life and fellow humans. "
Why would the two automatically be connected? Some deists believe in a First Cause that has nothing to do with human morality.
"It does create obvious and apparent problems that some see themselves as doing or implementing God or gods' work on earth in their own interpretation or understanding and to impose them on others."
Valid point. I know that many people believe in gods and also do NOT believe that everyone must obey those gods. I don't understand how some believers arrive at the belief of that universal sovereignity and how other believers don't.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 11:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THIS IS GOD ! I SAW THE MOVIE I LIKED IT I'M EMBARASSED BY YOU ALL PLEASE STOP DOING ALL THOSE STRANGE THINGS AND WEARING ALL THOSE FUNNY CLOTHES AND WHEN SOMEONE ASKS YOU A QUESTION THAT YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER , JUST POLITELY SAY " I DON'T KNOW " THAT'S THE TRUTH
Posted by: GOD | October 7, 2008 10:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THIS IS GOD ! "RELIGULOUS" IS A GREAT MOVIE.
SO BE IT. AMEN.
Posted by: GOD | October 7, 2008 9:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You missed the point of the film entirely.
you wanted some stupid mockumentary like the Borat guy. Not the truth. Sorry, that's not what it was.
Posted by: Melanie | October 7, 2008 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reality impaired Jacques Berlinerblau displays all the warning signs of being a discredited neoconservative, one of those scary servile clowns just like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle who aren’t very religious either but are more than willing to manipulate credulous religious people. These neoconservative nut jobs are conservative think tank toadies for the wealth of the Christian far right in this country. They are also clerical enablers for the oily corporate deeds of the Cheney/Bush presidency. Remember the phony claims of Iraqi WMD? Remember the no-bid occupation contracts to Cheney cronies. Remember the low cost claims for the short war in Iraq? Remember undermining the United Nations and the U.N. WMD inspection process. Remember not finding any WMD or 9/11 links in Iraq after the costly invasion? Remember the big boost this gave to nutty Shiite Iran. Remember the sectarian civil war that broke out in Iraq? What an epic Greek tragedy that has been during the presidency of George W. Bush. It’s a tale worthy of a special update edition from the poet Homer himself. How could Bill Maher’s movie “Religulous” possibly top the comedy antics of this neoconservative and Christian fundamentalist led tag team of zealots in the Bush administration.
Posted by: James Scott | October 7, 2008 6:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Cure for Religion: "The pragmatic approach for athests is not to fight the religionists in the media, but to fund the discovery of the gene/genes responsible for religious addiction."
I should hope that atheists would also strive to find a cure for cancer and HIV/AIDs too. It afflict both believers and non-believers.
And, after finding the genes responsible for religous addiction, say, the so called God gene, is it ethical to do a bit of genetic engineering on humans to purge it of the so called God gene against our will? And who gave anyone the right to do so?
Or, is this proposal a desperate act borne out of sheer frustration to cure humans of imbecilism for believing in God/s?
Perhaps we should find a cure for self-illusion and self-delusion among some non-believers that humans can be cured of or purged of their hopes, their dreams, their humanity manifested in belief of God/s and the characteristics of God/s?
Would it be inhuman and humane to do so? To create a perfectly logical and rational human by tempering with our genes? Or is tempering with genes to purge us of Down Syndrome a more logical and pragmatic choice?
Cheers
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 7, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Jihadist,
You said, and said well, "Faith is not a sickness, but blind faith is a disease. Faith is hope. Have faith. Even in believers. Unless you believe all believers are to be judged by the words and actions of a few and applied to all believers. If so, that sounds close to bigotry."
I agree. Welcome back.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | October 7, 2008 6:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jim Q: "Wow! Maher has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams!
I don't think I've ever seen a more concentrated collection of religious nuttiness as is seen in this blog."
All sort of believing and non-believer nuts flourish here. Just as in real life.
Frankly, I have never heard of Bill Maher until I read this essay by Mr. Berlinerblau on his "Religulous". Likewise, on Mike Myer's "Love Guru". Only know of that movie until I read On Faith blogs on it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tonio: Would you explain what you mean by "one's connection to god," and do you mean specifically to a monotheistic being? From my perspective, I see all sorts of different assertions from different religions about such beings, and it would be a lengthy task to test all those assertions, if that were possible.
I do not know to whom you are asking that question. God or gods is personal to holder of belief even within the same faith group. How one see and regard God/s is how one see and regard life and fellow humans. It does create obvious and apparent problems that some see themselves as doing or implementing God or gods' work on earth in their own interpretation or understanding and to impose them on others. This, you already know on the consequences.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Garrett: "New Atheism" is not movement; it's a term used by the religious to diminish the wide array of criticism of the act believing without evidence. I don't know a lot of "atheists" and certainly not any "New Atheists."
Frankly, I do not know who coined the term, "New Atheism". It is a new term to me as much as the term "religionist" as used by non-believers/atheists to apply to believers, even here in On Faith blogs.
"New Atheism" seem to be applied to those who are activists in their words and actions on beliefs and believers varying from ensuring seperation of church and state at one end to to purging religious beliefs completely.
From what I understand, and correct me here, "New Atheism" is used to describe atheist writers such as Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins. The writers variously described as radical or uncompromising or militant etc on belief. With oft repeated phrases by them such as the "God delusion", or "religion poisons everything" ...one gets the drift of their thrust to not endear quite a number of believers to their cause. A shrewd approach on how to win friends among believers and not alienate them as allies on the excesses of some religious fundamentalists and extremists?
Garrett : "There are many people I know who are nonreligious and many more perfectly bereft of the sickness of faith. But the term is here being used as an insult and Berlinerblau should know better."
The "sickness of faith"? Perhaps we should also consider the irrational obsession or contention of some in believing faith or religion is a "sickness" and not the life affirming element it is for many believers. There are also many non-believers, or non-religious if you like, who regard themselves or are regarded by others as "spiritual", including President Reagan. Do I take it being "spiritual" but not believing in God/s is better than being spiritual and believing in God/s?
Faith is not a sickness, but blind faith is a disease. Faith is hope. Have faith. Even in believers. Unless you believe all believers are to be judged by the words and actions of a few and applied to all believers. If so, that sounds close to bigotry.
Cheers
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 7, 2008 6:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Like all addictive drugs and behaviors, there are peddlers and consumers of religion. To keep the government of their back, the peddlers employ a motley crew of media-savvy smooth-talkers, and pit-bulls/enforcers who form watch-dog groups such as "Focus on Family". Sometimes the pit-bulls and the smooth-talkers are one and the same. These pit- talk of an ever-loving god, who will damn everybody against them to hell, in the one and the same sentence. One day all people addicted to organized religion will be cured by stem cell therapy created by atheists. The pragmatic approach for athests is not to fight the religionists in the media, but to fund the discovery of the gene/genes responsible for religious addiction.
Posted by: cure for religion | October 7, 2008 4:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow! Maher has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams!
The posts that follow are filled with crazy, radical notions. Clearly, if Maher's intent was to provoke people of faith into acting like morons, he has been wildly effective.
Why should Maher try to make Christians look dumb when they do such a good job without him? I don't think I've ever seen a more concentrated collection of religious nuttiness as is seen in this blog.
Posted by: Jim Q | October 7, 2008 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Strong and hyper religious convictions have often supported political ideology and led to intolerance and division (thinking our way to god is the ONLY way). This has lead to many wars - many of which still exist. Spirituality (one's connection to god) is less encumbered by man and dogma and leads to peace."
While that's a valid point, I would amend it to make it less monotheism-centric. Would you explain what you mean by "one's connection to god," and do you mean specifically to a monotheistic being? From my perspective, I see all sorts of different assertions from different religions about such beings, and it would be a lengthy task to test all those assertions, if that were possible.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"New Atheism" is not movement; it's a term used by the religious to diminish the wide array of criticism of the act believing without evidence. I don't know a lot of "atheists" and certainly not any "New Atheists." There are many people I know who are nonreligious and many more perfectly bereft of the sickness of faith. But the term is here being used as an insult and Berlinerblau should know better.
Posted by: Garrett | October 7, 2008 3:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To "Response to Jeff":
The subject was not number of wars, but rather, number of human deaths due to religion.
Since you bring it up, war seems to erupt most often in history over territory, financial and class disputes. The Greeks, Romans, British Empire, French Rev., American Rev., American Civil, Chinese Civil, WWII, etc.
Certainly there have been some, but what are the numerous religious wars to which you refer?
Posted by: Jeff | October 7, 2008 3:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
1) Wow, you organized religion types are sure protesting, perhaps a bit too much? Is Mahar's standup that threatening to you?
2) I think there are a lot more athiests than one sees in polling. For example, every President in my lifetime has been a Christian, but if you look at their behavior (especially Reagan and the Bushs) these people obviously have no fear of God or love of Jesus's teachings. Moreover, most "Christians" I've met lack the morals of your average pagan or athiest. Many of these "Christians" seem to think that because they are Christian, they can do whatever they want and it must be good because they are good.
I've heard there are no athiests in foxholes, but I wonder if there are any real believers in church.
Posted by: Marc Edward | October 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm a terrible person. My first thought upon reading the topic was of Bill Maher in that Borat "bathing outfit".
Must cleanse brain...
Posted by: Athena4 | October 7, 2008 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau,
Thank you for your essay on "Religulous". The title of the movie is a clever play on the word garrulous one suppose.
As for religious moderates and New Atheists, one do not suppose there is such a thing as moderate atheist or new religionists. One also surmises that a moderate atheist is a laudable epitome of secular humanism and all it entails.
It is interesting that there should be an New Atheist "creed" as you wrote - i.e. religious moderates as enablers of religious zealots etc. One can also surmise that the term New Atheist is also another phrase to describe "militant" atheists.
Or, it is the atheist moderates or moderate atheists are also enablers, facilitators too of the "militant" atheists and anti-theists in their battles and war against all religious sorts regardless of personal faith of the believer in the personal sphere and public square?
Berlinerblau : "I often wonder if the New Atheists themselves understand how politically counter-productive their relentless mocking of moderates has been."
Perhaps New Atheists thought that their relentless mocking of moderates would magically shame moderates into correcting the errors of their thinking to cease being imbeciles and such. Perhaps they are not understanding the simple principle of personal responsibility of thought and action, nor how to isolate each and every like minded group in the niched held specific beliefs even within the same broad umbrella of a particular faith.
Berlinerblau : "The latter (moderates) are everywhere locked in epic struggles with fundamentalists in their own traditions.
This I can vouch on. New Atheists are sometimes like irritating mosquitoes screaming on the sidelines, and strenghtening the hands of the fundamentalists with some of their more excessive pronoucements and actions and trying to open a new front to battle all religions and believers. However it is much, much more easier to ignore New Atheists than the well organised, well connected and well funded fundamentalists.
J - the Unrepentent Happy Imbecile Who Would Not Grow Up Nor Die
(P.S. Religions never die. They become new sects, new denominations, new religions, new age faiths etc)
Posted by: Jihadist | October 7, 2008 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In the beginning there were those animal paintings on the cave wall that somehow magically aided in the natural hunt, then the campfire stories about tree spirits granting gifts if appeased, more campfire tall tales created the mystical gods, and then a slew of pseudo one-god-only types with a whole host of magical pals watching over us from above granting wishes (some of these angel spirits possibly perched in the trees). Then from this dark demon-haunted, mental quagmire finally emerged the start of careful questioning of superstition along with tested reasoning that defined critical thinking and the scientific method which gave us Darwin and Einstein with nary tree spirit in sight.
However, in politics, it all seems to boil down to the irrational Judeo/Christian/Muslim/Hindu (etc) mindset of the various superstitious spinoff and splinter groupings out there (and of their servile minions) that contain the mentally compartmentalized or outright occult oriented people subtly driven by those weird core beliefs always telling the rational science oriented people who get deemed the “New Atheists” to just clam up, to stuff it, don’t rock the boat. All you hear from the religious and their neoconservative pals is to shut up, be quiet, and don’t talk about the problems of religion. Because they don’t want to hear it at all for fear others might hear it. It could cost them their think tank or university post. So to squawk about the ignorance and folly associated with blind faith belief systems is to mock their chief provider per their sad opinion and judgment. Jacques Berlinerblau is one of those don’t poke fun at my boss man type of guys. What does Mr. Berlinerblau want? Have Bill Maher make a formal alliance with the three least silly tree spirit religions in the comic film, “Religulous?”
Posted by: James Scott | October 7, 2008 3:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THIS MOVIE IS GREAT AND EVERYONE SHOULD GO SEE IT...HAHAHA YOU CAN TELL IT IS GREAT BECAUSE IT IS PISSING OFF THE RELIGIOUS LEFT AND RIGHT...NOW IF PEOPLE OF FAITH CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST BILL MAHER...WHAT CHANCE DO THEY HAVE PERIOD????
Posted by: leftoflarry | October 7, 2008 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ben Stein's recent film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," is anti-atheistic, although this bias is proposed indirectly by saying those who teach evolution have an atheistic agenda--the movies barbs are directed at the teaching of evolution. I haven't seen the film, so I don't know if Stein used humor. Since he is slightly comedic, at least he delivers his opinions with wry humor, I would guess that he takes this dry, humorous approach to this subject, which would mean, yes, there is at least once case where the religious make fun of atheists in a film. However, I would say that if this be the case, it would be the exception; the religious usually take themselves very seriously and probably don't see much humor in denying the existence of God. That being said, the religious are critical of atheists in film and other media, to the point, as in your article, of trivializing this belief (Yes, atheism is also a belief as one can't prove the non-existence of God anymore than one can prove His, Her or Its existence). One example of a film denigrating atheism, which can be found with a quick Goggle search, is "The Godless Girl, " a 1928 film directed by Cecil B. DeMille. The movie " . . . features a romance between an atheist girl, and the head of a Christian youth organization. The two are at odds when they are thrown into a reform school, but fall in love. The film ends with a fire that breaks out in the school; after the girl is rescued there is an epilogue in which she apparently has been converted back to Christianity." Again, humor isn't used, but the depth of the girls commitment is trivialized, as if atheists experiencing life or death events immediately recant. Well, now we know how to get atheists back into the fold. I guess that was once of the goals of the Inquisition. I am sure this isn't the only hack film based on this theme. One thing that is certain, Christian film critics, such as yourself, go to great pains to make light of any film that questions the tenets of the faith, such was done in regard to "The Last Temptation of Christ," by Nikos Kanzantzakis. What is so ironic is that the Christian community showed its ignorance by directing its bile to this film. If they had viewed it, and those that did had thought about it, they would have seen it as a triumph of Christ over temptation by the Devil. Another irony is that more than one atheist understand the essence of a religion better than the nominal believer. I wonder how many Christians are receiving the Pope's recent pronouncement that money is nothing positively to the point of acting on it. How many good Christians directed their venom to Biden for suggesting it is "patriotic" to pay taxes?
Posted by: ChuckB | October 7, 2008 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Of course Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster make more sense than "intelligent design." On their web site are many comments by scientists and academics that say just that.
Have you been touched by His noodley appendage? Did you celebrate International Talk Like a Pirate Day?
Posted by: Arminius | October 7, 2008 3:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have to say Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster make more sense than "intelligent design." We're truly a dumb nation...
Posted by: Last of the dodos | October 7, 2008 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ah, yes! The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. From Monty Python and the Holy Grail. What a movie! I still want to find Castle Anthrax.
Maybe it's time to get into the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Posted by: Arminius | October 7, 2008 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Consult the Book of Armaments!
Armaments, Chapter Two, verses Nine to Twenty-one: "And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying,'O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy"
Posted by: In Thy Name... | October 7, 2008 2:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Brian 24:12: "And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats..."
Brian 24:7: "And the Lord spoke, saying, First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
Posted by: Brian 24:12 | October 7, 2008 2:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Strong and hyper religious convictions have often supported political ideology and led to intolerance and division (thinking our way to god is the ONLY way). This has lead to many wars - many of which still exist. Spirituality (one's connection to god) is less encumbered by man and dogma and leads to peace.
Posted by: TO TONIO | October 7, 2008 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Somebody better buy [Maher] a book on biblical interpretation...."
Why should Maher concern himself with biblical interpretation? Once a person asserts that the Bible must be "interpreted," he has ruined the credibility of his point of view.
Consider the following dialogue:
A: Snakes don't talk; therefore the Bible is a total crock.
B: Adam and Eve weren't real people; they were just symbolic, fictional characters.
A: And Noah and the ark?
B: That's just a symbolic story.
A: I see. So anything that violates all plausibility in the Bible is just a symbol. So, the magical, invisible man who created the universe, the one called God, is nothing more than a symbol, too, right?
B: No, no, no! I didn't say that! Waaaah! I'm not talking to you any more. Waaaaaaah!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am fairly literate in history, and a distressing amount of history concerns warfare. Most historians consider the 30 Years War to have been the last major religious war. There were plenty of wars before the Roman Empire became Christian, and none were religious. Most of the medieval wars, with the obvious exception of the crusades, were political.
Can anyone name a major war after the 30 Years War that could be called a religious war? Saying that both sides usually believed God was on their side does not count. Any takers?
As Tonio said, "The real villain here is not religion or secular ideology but authoritarianism in all its forms.
By the way, Jeff, your stats are wrong, IMHO. More like 30 million for the USSR, and at least that many for Mao.
Posted by: Arminius | October 7, 2008 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Communism far exceeds any killing in the name of religion."
It's fair to compare communism and fascism not to religion in general, but to the authoritarian varieties of religion. This would be especially true of the brutal Maoism. The real villain here is not religion or secular ideology but authoritarianism in all its forms.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff, I have no idea how old you are, but your argument that religion is not the cause of most wars throughout history simply by naming those wars that were not related to religious strife is probably the facile argument I have ever heard. Are you well read? I mean in something other than the bible?
Posted by: Response to Jeff | October 7, 2008 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Berlinerblau,
I want to thank you for saving me $12-the price of two senior movie tickets in Detroit. Instead, we'll see "The Miracle of St. Anne's"
Posted by: Jerry Weinberg | October 7, 2008 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Though somewhat off the subject, I felt the need to address an oft stated untruth.
Scared to use my real name (for fear of reprisal) wrote:
"The point that is clear, ..., is that more people in the history of humanity have died and will continue to die in the name of 'religion' than for any other cause."
This is completely false. Religion, when corrupted by power, has committed some dreadful acts (Crusades). But in the 20th Century alone, Communism far exceeds any killing in the name of religion.
USSR - 60,000,000 (43 mil by Stalin alone)
Pol Pot - 2 million
Communist China - 1 million
Though not communist you can toss in the Nazis too. 11 million (though Hitler co-opted religion, the killing of the Jews was ethnic and they were hardly promoting Christianity)
Japan too - 6 million
NONE of the above were killing for religion! How many religious run shelters, charities, orphanages, and individual Churches have contributed to the health and healing around the world? Countless 1000s and they've helped millions.
Posted by: Jeff | October 7, 2008 12:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This article is utterly preposterous - flawed from the get-go. OK... so Maher is no Borat; I'm sure Maher would agree. And you, Mr. Berlinerblau, are no Thomas Aquinas. SO WHAT? It would have been wise to clarify exactly why you want to compare him to Borat. This makes no sense. But then again, it DOES come from a person programmed by his religion. I should have known that a person from the far religious right would do anything possible to attack Maher. You people need to think with your GOD-GIVEN BRAINS. Read something more than the bible - FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE
Posted by: SMaaaht | October 7, 2008 12:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This article is utterly preposterous - flawed time from the get-go. OK... so Maher is no Borat; I'm sure Maher would agree. And you, Mr. Berlinerblau, are no Thomas Aquinas. SO WHAT? It would have been wise to clarify exactly why you want to compare him to Borat. This makes no sense. But then again, it DOES come from a person programmed by his religion. I should have known that a person from the far religious right would do anything possible to attack Maher. You people need to think with your GOD-GIVEN BRAINS. Read something more than the bible - FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE
Posted by: SMaaaht | October 7, 2008 12:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Firstly, the whole point with religious 'moderates' that many outspoken aethiests such as Dawkins and Hitchens make is the utter inconsistency that their world view embraces. You believe in God and yet you believe in the findings of science that regularly contest the existence of supernatural forces. You live a life of reason i.e. you actually do logical things and yet God remains beyond this logic. Do you ever pray for money? No. You go out and make it? But you pray that the Yankees win a match because there's nothing you can do about it otherwise. Anyway...the point is neutrality and moderateness isn't very useful. Honestly i dont like Maher myself. He's not as smart as he thinks he is.
Posted by: Roshan | October 7, 2008 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As 'Mocking of moderates' goes, ...I really wonder. A lot of people consider themselves moderates, who aren't... In religions with aggressive Fundamentalist branches, there is certainly a tendency to not recognize the problems or make excuses for them: to enable, so to speak.
Even to be all too willing to be pandered to by such candidates who have less in common with the moderates than they might think. Even be willing to be told that 'New Atheists' are the biggest problem this country and world faces, next to all the other usual scapegoats. (As opposed to the fact our economy's being crashed and looted by those who presented themselves as 'Righteous' and brought only hatred, war, division, neglect of essential services and infrastructure, and financial ruin. )
Sure, a lot of 'New Atheists' on the Net (Or maybe those doing a bad impersonation of em ) are obnoxious, ...many atheists of any kind are just as literalist as the Fundamentalists they share legitimate fears about regarding our world and government... Some seem to like to troll with, 'All religion is BS,' or otherwise demonstrate no interest in understanding...
Often they'll want a simplistic solution to complex problems, like, 'What's wrong in the world, 'Just' abolish religion,' Yeah, real helpful.
Problems like, 'Minority religions have a lot of unserved-soldiers in the military cause of discrimination in an increasingly-Evangelical chaplaincy corps...' A lot of atheists will say, 'Just get rid of all chaplains.'
Yeah, real helpful, there.
But for some atheists, I guess, there's just as much comfort in thinking they have all the answers without thought or effort, just as much as for religious literalists. No solutions, there, though, not for anyone.
But they can't do that, anyway, so it's irrelevant. What's their 'agenda' in politics? Not much, for the most part. Mostly they want to be left alone and not feel the a free country is run by maniacs who disenfranchise them.
Piety and reason don't *have* to be at odds, but no one gets a free pass on the latter by saying 'This belief or disbelief *is* reason.'
That's all there is to it, really.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 7, 2008 11:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
For those who think in an open system, Matt 24:22 was not said by the historic Jesus but was another embellishment by Matthew of the simple preacher man aka Jesus.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/064_The_Last_Days
Ditto for Luke 12:5.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/158_Whom_to_Fear
For added details, see the books of Professors JD Crossan, Marcus Borg and Paula Fredirksen, historic Jesus exegetes and members of the On Faith Panel of experts.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 7, 2008 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Gee...you are obviously a religious person and it seems you took this movie as a serious documentary. Wake up bud, its a comedy!
Posted by: Duh! | October 7, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Do you ever see a movie where religious people 'make fun of' atheists?"
Some of Cecil B. DeMille's epics do so indirectly.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jesus said "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." (Luke 12:5)
Posted by: spiderman2 | October 7, 2008 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Oberle...you obviously don't understand the thought processes of a person who is "religious". We understand that we AREN'T perfect, and that we AREN'T right about everything. We place our trust in God to help us do the right thing, but understand that God has given us free will, and that we are flawed. Do you ever see a movie where religious people "make fun of" atheists? Seems to me that it is the atheists who feverishly try to "prove" he or she is right. I have an idea...let's just leave each other alone...respect each others beliefs and see who is "right" in the end.
Posted by: John Boggs | October 7, 2008 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill Maher....what a tool...LOL
Posted by: John Boggs | October 7, 2008 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You are an idiot. Religulous was awesome, and religion is stupid.
Posted by: Godfreeandhappy | October 7, 2008 11:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
this is the dumbest crap i've ever read, go on defend your precious moderates, the same half-wits that support the fundamentalists any time they run for office.
ignore half the country that is so ignorant they are easily swayed by pretty pictures on a television screen, the same half that elected president bush.
Posted by: Rob | October 7, 2008 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Open system and closed system? Tonio and Arminius, you two are what Bill Maher refers to as Religulous. You are both religious idiots.
Posted by: spiderman2 | October 7, 2008 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius,
"But the minute this closed system starts to apply its arguments to things outside the system, all arguments fail."
That shows why closed systems are dangerous when they claim that their logic or premises represent absolute exclusive truth. Everything from outside the system is framed or interpreted according to the interior logic, so there's no reality check for the logic or the system's premises. This isn't a problem when a closed system is in a fictional context, such as the enclosed universe concepts used by many science fiction and comic book writers, or in role-playing games.
"And, in a sense, the reverse is true, when someone argues that, viewed from the outside, one aspect of the system is obviously false (e.g. the creation stories), then all the system must also be false."
The person in your example is making a false argument - if an aspect of a system doesn't depend on other aspects, then its accuracy wouldn't affect the accuracy of the other aspects.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maher is an ideologue? Who would have guessed! I'm sure Dobson, etc. aren't ideologues. I know this because the media isn't running stories about how the EVIL IDEOLOGUES! Because there's nothing worse than being an ideologue. I guess unless you're a christianist ideologue - then its ok.
Posted by: Gavin082 | October 7, 2008 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tonio, you said,
"But when moderates say that extremists are theologically inaccurate. I don't understand how anything in theology can be shown to be accurate or inaccurate."
The problem you are having is that you are applying external arguments. If one views Christianity in terms of a closed system, debating within its boundaries makes sense, and even logic can be used. But the minute this closed system starts to apply its arguments to things outside the system, all arguments fail. And, in a sense, the reverse is true, when someone argues that, viewed from the outside, one aspect of the system is obviously false (e.g. the creation stories), then all the system must also be false. That sort of thing gets close to the famous black horse argument: That animal is a horse; it is black; therefore, all horses are black.
Posted by: Arminius | October 7, 2008 10:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matthew 24:22)
This one is very clear and doesn't need any interpretation. It's not the Bible. Mostly it's the people's mind that is defective.
Doomsday is coming. That is for sure.
Posted by: spiderman2 | October 7, 2008 10:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Praise to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Jesus said: "I am the way, I am the truth, I am the Life."
When you have one standard, there is a way to find the truth.
There is only one way for true discernment of each situation of one's life. Through Jesus Christ we are individuals and not part of some ethic or cultural group. We the believer's of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and has a Savior who died for us. He was born, He lived, He died, and He rose from the dead. He is waiting for us in heaven. Through the Prophets we have a proven living document called The Bible. God loves you. You don't have to die for God, God died for you. Though him you have a purpose, though the free-will God created us with
The apostle John tells us: "Perfect Love casts out fear". St. Paul tells us: We are all over comers through Jesus Christ, in whatever life we are in. The Bible is the one truth. The modern day scholar Simon Greenleaf from Harvard University took this to task and proved this truth. Come to Jesus though your free will while you can.
Posted by: Roger | October 7, 2008 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Witless,
"Both of them tend to put an apology or caveat in front of their left wing attacks on traditional values."
Richard Lewis? I've never heard him even mention religion in his stage act, which focuses on his neuroticism and the neuroticism of his family.
Tom Bishop,
"Those who oppose nonbelievers are drawn to the so-called new atheist for the same reason the new atheist is drawn to the literal interpreter: they are either hilarious or provocative, depending on your mood, and they reinforce your stereotypes."
My own theory is that some people are wired for literalism and some people are wired for allegory, and that this transcends questions of religion.
Let's be Real,
"And finally, can someone explain to me why I shouldn't agree with the 'new atheist' claim that religious moderates legitimize religious extremists? This claim seems irrefutable to me, which perhaps is why Berlinerbrau doesn't attempt any argument against it."
I'm divided about that myself. I deeply appreciate the religious moderates who critize their extremist colleagues on the valid grounds that extremism leads to suffering. But when moderates say that extremists are theologically inaccurate. I don't understand how anything in theology can be shown to be accurate or inaccurate. For all we know, the moderates could be mistaken in saying that their gods are loving, and the extremists could be right that their gods are vengeful. Just because the former sounds preferable to most people doesn't mean that it's factually accurate. There's no way to determine whether one assertion about the nature of "metaphysical/supernatural/transcendental" beings is any more factually accurate than any other assertion. The objective is to determine if such beings exist and, if so, what their natures and properties are - to subject such assertions to the same scientific scrutiny as any other assertion about the physical universe.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 9:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Irishspacemonk,
"I find it strange that some Christians think the bible is open to interpretation - but still reflects the word of God. If God is one, and right, then how can different interpretations be afforded."
I share your confusion.
"You can even skim the posts in this forum alone and find self-proclaimed Atheists, Secular Humanists, etc are indeed pushing their beliefs around"
While you are right to point that out, the difference between the fanatical atheists and the fanatical believers is that the latter's doctrines question the right of nonbelievers to even exist. No matter how fanatical some atheists may get, to my knowledge no atheist has ever claimed that believers deserve to suffer for eternity after death. That is much more immoral than calling someone brainwashed, which I agree is offensive. More than that, the claim is directly responsible for centuries of anti-Semitic persecution. Fanatical believers who tell unbelievers that they deserve hell should not expect sympathy when they have their intelligence questioned by fanatical atheists.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I haven't seen the film, although I probably will, and I suspect I will find it amusing, and I also suspect that I will agree with a good bit of Jacques Berlinerblau's posting.
No doubt Maher will make his points by setting up straw men, then knocking them over -- in the perverse style of trickery used by Michael Moore.
It's easy enough to laugh at religious charlatans like Falwell and Robertson who make disgusting assertions that AIDS is God's punishment of homosexuals and Katrina was punishment for New Orleans' culture of sin and who seem to place inordinate emphasis on that confusing, even hallucinatory book, Revelation.
My own view is that dogmatic atheism is the mirror image of dogmatic religion. I can no more assert with certainty that there is a God than I can assert that there is not. This of course makes me an agnostic.
But when you get into areas like belief in the virgin birth or the physical resurrection, you are in more delicate territory. Why do we have to believe that the power of Jesus' teaching rests upon the fact that his mother was a virgin? And do we really want to believe in resuscitation of the body? (At what age? In what condition? With what human yearnings for food and sex?)
The most liberating thing I ever heard from a pulpit came from a Methodist minister who said, "It would not destroy my faith if the bones of Jesus were found in some cave in the Middle East."
That statement made it possible for me to call myself s struggling Christian without having to believe in a lot of magic that has nothing whatever to do with the simple but powerful teaching of Jesus.
-- Ray Jenkins
Posted by: Ray Jenkins | October 7, 2008 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religious moderates need to understand that standing by as the country becomes a theocracy will be the end of America as many of us know it.
Can there be freedom in a religious state?
Absolutely not.
Is a state that favors one religion over others the country we grew up in? No.
Posted by: GeorgeinNOVA | October 7, 2008 9:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Atheism is no different from religion. There are zealots, evangelicals, and also the quieter "personal" atheists. Some of them loudly, openly, hate religion. Some don't care what others believe.
They want the political system to favor their (dis)belief.
They have formed empires (Remember the USSR?)
It is all faith. There is no more "scientific evidence" supporting the existence of a god than there is supporting the absence of one. (that is, ahem, the meaning of faith...)
The real danger to humanity is to separate yourself so far from the "others" that you forget that biologically, we are all the same.
This movie was irreverent, and funny. I hope the religious (who see it) realize you can relax and laugh - and still have faith. And the atheists realize you can relax and laugh - without having to rally a battle cry.
Posted by: SAW | October 7, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tomb,
"The former makes more sense to me then the God they like to rally against."
How so? My comment was intended to criticize not just hardcore atheists who focus only on a single god, but also hardcore monotheists who treat a single god as the only option. The skeptic treats all assertions about metaphysical beings as equally unlikely since they all equally lack evidence.
Posted by: Tonio | October 7, 2008 9:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maybe the movie tried to shed light on the ignorance of religious followers through comedy?
Trying to speak intelligently to unintelligent people about a topic in which people follow blindly and do not follow its writings with a literal interpretation makes no sense. Nothing about religion makes sense so someone devotedly religious surely wouldn't understand it. They are religiously ignorant. Bush is a good example of this. His theology is the basis of governing. Any wonder why the country is in shambles? Maher points to this and I wish more would.
Posted by: Mike | October 7, 2008 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Correction: India is Hindu-Buddhist. India is the home of Buddhism although there are very few Indian Buddhists today.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 9:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is in the nature of religions to build societies and over time these societies became civilizations.
Ever heard of an atheist civilization?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Every culture has been influenced by the religion of the majority, that is why the Middle Eastern culture is primarily Islamic, Chinese is Confusianism + Taoism + Buddhism, (before it became atheistic Communist), Japan is Shinto + Buddhist, India is Hindu, Europe & America is Christian, although all of them have secular governments now.
Every religion has a set of values that shapes the society for better or for worse. Christianity didn't do too badly in shaping Europe, despite the misuse of power at some points in its history. The US didn't build a very bad government based on core Judeo-Christian principles.
Atheism is a recent phenomenon in history and they form only a tiny minority of the population, no matter how vocal they may be. Atheists live in societies built by religions and enjoy all the benefits.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think your review might have more weight if you were a little more precise in your observations. First of all Maher does not refer to himself as an Atheist. He has stated many times publicly that Atheism is just a different kind of religion. He states that he has no more way of knowing that God does not exist than he does knowing that he does.
The assertion that people that believe in the separation of church and state have to be new atheists is absurd. The founding fathers that came up with the concept were believers. After seeing the continual familial wars among the incestuous royal families of Europe over one sect or another of the same religion, they realized the controlling and divisive nature state religion can have. Removing practices of faith outside the governmental sphere allows all peoples to practice or not practice as the see fit.
Many scientist including Darwin have/had a strong belief in God. The struggle to keep tenets of faith out of the science classroom has nothing to do with the belief in God. As scientific principals provide a deeper understanding of the natural mechanisms at play in our world, they may challenge the old world interpretation of some scriptural references of certain religious sects. To discount the scientific evidence of say evolution because it varies with our previous understanding of God creating the world does not mean that the faith is challenged just the orthodoxy. Farmers use the Darwinian principals everyday when they use animal husbandry to create or enhance a line of animals, like the Portland China pig in Ohio. Or they create/use a hybrid seed corn for planting. This practical challenge to God creating all of the species rather than having them evolve seems to be acceptable. I guess that is because we talk about it out loud in the class room and just talk the mechanics on the farm. You need to keep specific tenets of a religion out of the science class as not to restrict the pursuit of the scientific knowledge. As when they fought Copernicus about the Earth revolving around the Sun. Would you stop investigations about the cause and effect of lightning because that is the preview of Thor. Science is a method of trying to uncover how things work. It is hampered by tenets that cannot be challenged by scientific investigation and discovery. That was a scientific fact that was at first fought vigorously as heresy and slowly was accepted as part of the overall heavenly plan. Although there are tenets in religion that are focused on as unchangeable and unchallengeable, they do evolve over time. Take the change in the christian religion on having religious services on the Sabbath as commanded in the ten commandments. The Sabbath as described in the Jewish tradition is from Friday at sundown to Sunday at dawn. The early christian church around the time of Constantine change the day of worship to Sunday rather than Saturday. This allowed them to make a differentiation between themselves and the Jewish community that did not follow them into the new belief. There is no biblical reference in the new testament that Sunday is now the new sabbath. Jesus never called for it. Actually Christ's dying and burial before sundown on Friday and his waiting until after dawn on Sunday to rise shows that he was honoring the original restrictions of the Sabbath. Yet the Christian community has dealt with the migration of the religious celebration over time. Science needs to be able to look wherever the trail leads. It can not rule out of hand that certain concepts are true or not true because tradition has cast a moral story in a light that would contradict the scientific findings.
That does not make all people that feel science and religion don't mix are New Atheists. I guess that label makes it easier to discount people that are not as orthodox as yourself. You should actually thank Maeher for his movie. Some of the more obvious contradictions that are the funnier moments in the movie,could have been answered if the people questioned had ever thought about the topics through in the course of their own religious development. Because the churches teach religion as catechism classes for adults, many adults are not prepared to take an argument beyond the practiced automated response as taught in Sunday school.
Posted by: Kevin Wires | October 7, 2008 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I found the film mesmerizing, and frightening. I've long given up on the mythologies of religions. But I do worry that millions of people around me with whom I must socialize still cling to their absurd dogmas. I urge all thinkers to see this movie. For those of you who don't think with reason, save your $10.
Posted by: David in Dallas | October 7, 2008 8:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
GEORGEINNOVA: Read the New Testament to verify if Jesus established a political religion.
An attempt to influence politics is not about establishing a theocracy. In a democracy everyone has the right to influence government, not just atheists, but also religionists.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Check out the tenets of the religions.
Check out the real reason for extremism.
Look for the causes that fuel militant expressions. Check out if it is politics disguised as religion. It can happen with any religion, including an otherwise peace loving Hinduism or Christianity founded on self-sacrifice of Jesus and ALL the Apostles Jesus Himself chose.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I've never read these authors you refer to "anonymous".
I do want to ask about a comment you just made.
"Islamic terrorism is a separate topic that needs to be dealt with as such. Islam has a political element that no other religion has."
A political element that no other religion has? Are you saying that Evangelical Christianity in America has no political element?
I think 9 out of 10 reasonable people would be very dubious of that comment. And that's at the heart of what I'm saying. Why can't your religion be a personal matter? That's all I ask. But when so many Christians organize politically, and try and force me to accet their values (their term, not mine), then that is a political movement AND a religion. And those of you who sit back and let it happen are no better. You are part of the problem. Why? Because you are letting us become a theocracy, and that's not what America is intended to be.
Posted by: Georgeinnova | October 7, 2008 8:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Richard Dawkins blog on this forum is also worth reading for the same reason, although the number of comments are far fewer.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If anti-theists want to go in circles with the same boring statements that have been posted hundreds of times, please visit the Sam Harris blogs here.
Come up with an idea that is not already posted there, since some brilliant ideas were exchanged there that does not need to be repeated over and over again.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
GEORGEINNOVA:
Those lines from Sam Harris, that moderates are guilty of what extremists do, and moderates are not different from extremists is a statement steeped in ignorance. Moderates are not obliged to respond.
At least take the time to differentiate between religions; list specific actions that need to be corrected and by whom...otherwise it is all merely a useless rant.
Islamic terrorism is a separate topic that needs to be dealt with as such. Islam has a political element that no other religion has.
Should moderates be appealing to non-anti-theists to rein in the New Atheists, and blame them if they don't succeed in silencing the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins etc? No religious moderate comes up with such a crazy idea.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Funny, Maher speaks highly of you. Oh wait, he, like the rest of us, surely has no idea who you are, so maybe he doesn't.
Like a Yorky yapping along behind Maher's auto, this article just pastes one disapproving adverb to another and let's that serve as a critique. It must be annoying to have no substantive rebuttal whatsoever to Bill's ideas and, after all, ideas are what his comedy is all about. Maybe he should do a remake of Marjoe's movie about the world of evangelical hucksters -- he could find some humor in the laying on of hands, handling of snakes, etc., and could add in some chants and smoke and pedophilia and whatnot to expand it to others with their hands out for money from those to whom they sell their religious placebo.
Posted by: Dolph T | October 7, 2008 8:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If you could prove the "existence" of god, you would have no need for "faith".
Posted by: kparc | October 7, 2008 8:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anti-theists (New Atheists) are that special group of atheists who would see religion abolished and are intolerant of people who practice any religion. Eg. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins...and their faithful followers.
Prof Berlinerblau's comments are directed at them.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It can be argued that there are no religious moderates if those who describe themselves as such do nothing to distinguish themselves from the extremists.
read that again, slowly. If you sit back and allow the extremists to carry the day politically, socially, and in every other respect...then how are you any different?
You may feel different inside, you may consider yourself moderate, or indifferent, but if you take no action while the zealots in your faith drive change...then you are no different. Your unwillingness to rein in the extermists in your faith makes you complicit in what they do.
If you think we are being too heavy or too serious, then you simply fail to understand our outrage at their behaviour. They are taking us literally off a cliff. And you refuse to stop it. And that's no exaggeration.
Posted by: GeorgeinNOVA | October 7, 2008 8:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To the best of my knowledge Prof Berlinerblau is a secular Jew, i.e. a non-practicing Jew, an atheist of Jewish origin.
So atheists, relax.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It's time for society to accept and respect atheists in the same way most Christians respect a Buddist, Jew, sun worshipper, black or gay. We all have interesting differences: believers, non-believers, tribalists - it makes the world a better place. Tolerance is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: TS | October 7, 2008 8:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
CHRIS, you are free to be an atheist. Only remember to remember others have the right to practice any religion they please and change their religion as often as they please. That is what freedom OF religion is about.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
CHRIS, do not get carried away. Get your facts right about Christianity and Islam. There is a *big* difference in the history of the two religions - its founder, its tenets, its mode of spread etc.
Lumping both religions together is convenient, but does not reflect the truth about them. They are two different religions for a reason. Not to bother to find out the difference is laziness. So hold your fire until you are better informed.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 8:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Methinks thou dost......
Isn't Maher's point that there *are* no "religious moderates"? Belief in the great spirit who listens to your thoughts disqualifies you as moderate.
As far as "Why were the atheists so irrelevant this election season?", just a silly question. We atheists know that for politicians, professing their faith is just as necessary as loving babies and apple pie. It goes with the turf. We expect nothing different.
Posted by: SamBrown | October 7, 2008 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Could you recommend a good book on the history of biblical interpretation?
Posted by: gsr | October 7, 2008 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques Berlinerblau - you consider yourself a religious moderate, correct? Then you are showing readers why we non-"religious" people do not see you all as allies. You are closed-minded, oppressors, judges, bullies, terrorists. Christians are no different than Muslims. You and your elk complain that Christians are all lumped into one pot of hateful people, but you all deserve it. Look at history. The majority of the wars have been fought in the name of religion. When Christianity came into existence, what did you people do? You went every where you could to "convert" non-Christians to the "one true religion". If they did not convert, you rapped and killed them. And you still do it today along with your Muslim brethen.
Oh by the way, this is the United Stated of America where our Constitution grants us the FREEDOM OF RELIGION -- or should have it be FROM IT!!!
Maybe I should have spoken in tongues otherwise you folks probably don't understand what I am talking about here.
Posted by: Chris | October 7, 2008 8:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I love Mr. Berlinerblau's use of the phrase "low-wattage selection of religious schmucks" I am wondering if he thinks Mr. Maher should have looked for higher-wattage religious smucks such as himself?
Posted by: H. A. Bott | October 7, 2008 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Another attempt to downgrade a damaging movie to all "faiths". Don't be scared
Posted by: Ron | October 7, 2008 7:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I saw this movie last weekend. My companion lamented the lack of opposing view. My thought was that it was a 'point of view' documentary kind of film and that he wasn't required to show both sides. It wasn't a PBS special.
I find that the religious moderates I know who are so proud of their 'tolerance' of non-believers, will only tolerate them if they quickly 'sit down and be quiet'.
You should be addressing the core problem that perhaps if both viewpoints take their rightful place they can never come together. One side believes no such thing exists and the other side cannot exist if they give that viewpoint any credibility.
Where have the peace loving religious moderates been while the religious idealogues have been running rampant? Is it surprising if the 'silent majority' sits without comment while the Religious Right threatens to turn the nation into a theocracy that non-believers would respond with anger. How long would you allow someone to poke you with a sharp stick? Perhaps the failure of mainstream religion to stand against bullies and object to such things as a 'religious test' for presidential candidates caused a real deterioration of respect from non-believers. There has been a kind of "a little religion can't hurt" (even for non-believers).
I might actually fight to defend your right to believe something that does not impinge on my life...public or private. Can you say that you would fight for my right to believe there was absolutely no basis for YOUR belief?
Posted by: dogdiva | October 7, 2008 7:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill Maher is a left wing ideolouge...he is not funny any more. Perhaps he should have stuck to stand up. I believe he is nothing more than a shill trying to be contrary for the sake of arguement.
Posted by: Shawn D. Matticks | October 7, 2008 7:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't understand how anyone who lives in Northern Virginia, where I live, can not see the mega-churches on every corner, each and every one tax exempt and bursting with conspicuous wealth, and not be concerned that as a society we are moving towards well, frankly, dementia. The writer uses the term religious moderates as if to say many of you people are not extremists...well from the perspective of others...you are. honestly I don't care to the extent you keep your religion your business, but for too many of you that's just not the case. And organized religious positions on politics and other public matters is wrong. Liberty University is offering extra credit, higher grades, for students who vote for John McCain. Does that seem like a moderate position? And yet no one speaks out. Why not?
Posted by: GeorgeinNoVA | October 7, 2008 7:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
" Masala:
Dwight:
You blindly denounce Maher's movie simply because Maher might have offended you in the past (my feelings are hurt!), it is obvious you have NOT seen the movie because he does not just focus on Christianity but a variety of organized religions (Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Mormonism, Scientology).
October 6, 2008 5:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment"
did maher go easy on islam because if he didn't he must be aware of how muslims deal with people that insult their faith...
did they issue a fatah on maher yet...
Posted by: Dwight | October 7, 2008 7:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maher almost -- not quite, but almost -- moves me to become a conservative. He validates charges of liberal elitism, condescension and small-mindedness. There is also a craven, jump-on-the-bandwagon aspect to him; religious oddballs are a cheap and popular target.
Posted by: Lin | October 7, 2008 7:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
WOW ! I saw the movie and thought it was a mini tour de force for what it tried to do in the time constraints of a film. After all, nothing is vilified more than what the faithful call,' anti-religious' works.
It really is not anti anything. It is a realistic review of the idiots who populate the so called " religious " segment of society.
You all need to get over yourselves.
Posted by: thopaine | October 7, 2008 7:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obviously, for Bill Maher, like all the other media pundits, it's not about religion, it's about them.
Thus, provocation is the goal, so as to simplistically generate self-serving publicity.
Posted by: Bernard Silverman | October 7, 2008 6:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The point that is clear, whether you 'like' Bill Maher and his ideals or not, is that more people in the history of humanity have died and will continue to die in the name of 'religion' than for any other cause. A man with nothing clings to belief, and the only one who does not believe what is being sold to him is the salesman. Religion is a tool for controlling the weak minded and the ignorant. It has worked, and is working to brilliant affect for centuries.
Posted by: Scared to use my real name (for fear of reprisal) | October 7, 2008 6:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Abraham:Those type of Christians aren't the ones trying to run our lives in the US> .
The Christians in this country are a little different.
There against abortion but for the death penalty.
There also Racists, pro war and pro gun.
What kind of Christians are these.
Posted by: langx | October 7, 2008 6:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why are atheists irrelevant in this election? Can you name an election when they were relevant?
I think you can't, and that you are raising a strawman.
Just a couple paragraphs before you ask this specious question you note that there are millions of Jews and Christians who have doubts, who are OK with science and modernity and secular government.
Then you assign both teaching science in the schools and separation of church and state (secular government) to atheists.
Which is it?
I'm not a fan of Bill Maher. I don't find him funny, and won't go to this movie.
I am also a Christian who believes that science should be taught in public schools, religion should be left out of public schools except as history or personal choice, and that the separation of church and state is what allows us all to be religious in the way we want.
Posted by: Confused | October 7, 2008 6:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
BattleGround: Maybe you missed it but since the Christian Rights bible boy got into the White House I would swear God has God Damned America.
With the so called Christian in the White House your country has swung dramatically towards Fascism.
Your economy is now being run with socialist policies.
I think you may have been praying for the last 8 years because you missed your country step into two religious wars, destroy it's honor, destroy it's economy and is now teetering on a depression.
Yet your worried about Obama.
4 more years of the GOP and there won't be an America.
8 years of the current GOP and I can't recognize America. Maybe you should get off your knees step into the real world and see what George Bush has done to your country.
It's everything you think is going to happen when it already did. You voted and support the guy who did exactly to your country what you think hasn't been done yet.
And you wonder why we look at you people like your crazy.
|Because your crazy.
Posted by: Langx | October 7, 2008 6:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
West Euro-socialism, where universal health care and other good things is a given, is a great thing. Americans who have had a taste of it do NOT want to return to the US, even if they still feel proud to call themselves American!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 6:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maher is a loser, always has been and always will be as he peddles his self-righteous hatred which so marks men and women of his ilk. Brings to mind C.S. Lewis' comment as he viewed a grave marker bearing the words, "Here lies George Smith, an Atheist. All dressed up and nowhere to go." Said Lewis, "I bet he wishes that were true."
Posted by: sidetracked | October 7, 2008 6:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You can mock moderates because they still believe.
They are the people who would rather act like they believe just in case the bible is true so they won't be left out the rapture.
You either believe or you don't.
You either take the bible literally or you don't
Posted by: Langx | October 7, 2008 6:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Barack H. Obama is the candidate of choice of the elite atheists of America. There can be no doubt about that. The guilded halls of San Fransisco, New York, and Boston are singing his praises. These elite atheists lack any real, religious force in their lives so, it seems, they have substituted "The One" as the head of the church of environmentalism and socialism.
America will change forever when these people gain complete power. Atheistic, Euro-socialism will be our fate. The United Nations will be our Mecca. Global warming will be our Hell. Al Gore our national prophet.
Stephen King could not have written a more terrifying, horror novel.
Posted by: BattleGround | October 7, 2008 6:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Be nice to me, I'm only moderately dogmatic..." Waaaaa!
Posted by: Paul | October 7, 2008 6:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
That's right, its the "New Atheists" to blame in '08. If only we could get our act together in '12. Its not the puritanical fundamentalist whackos who have driven our country into an abyss, its the atheists! If one only moderately believes ridiculously stupid and untestable dogma, we should go lighter on them, right? How about developing a country of thinkers who question? I thought the movie was disappointing, too. But you shouldn't take that as an opening to espouse your [only moderately] insane religion. It really is possible to store the mind with facts and still not know a thing.
Posted by: john | October 7, 2008 6:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Just to clear things up; Bill Maher is agnostic, not atheist. Big difference.
Posted by: Pedro | October 7, 2008 6:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This has to one of the dumbest movies ever made. You can't make fun of God!
Posted by: Honest | October 7, 2008 5:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You may have a point about his poor delivery, however he is absolutely right.
We can respect each others beliefs, just keep religion to yourself at home.
It's sad and ridiculous when politicians mention god as an excuse for their actions and no one in the mainstream media has the integrity or lack of courage to call them on it.
Posted by: Robert | October 7, 2008 5:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Poor Ezra Cornell must be spinning in his grave that two sneering kings of glib sarcasm like Maher and Keith Olbermann both graduated from his university in the 1970s.
Educated men don't act this way. Somehow their prejudices were confirmed and reinforced.
Posted by: J. Conrad | October 7, 2008 4:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What scares me most is anybody so egotistical that they don't have the humility to doubt.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 4:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow. It's infrequent that I see a review that so completely captures it's subject.
Thanks - I've already seen Maher in action, so I already know his opinion of religion and his technique. You've saved me having to watch this one, as I understand the premise, method, and conclusion without having to see it.
Without Cohen's ability to push and unpush people's buttons - few have that ability at that level. Tom Green is another master at this type of humor.
Posted by: John B. | October 7, 2008 4:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why do atheists put all Christians or the whole history of Christianity in one pot and? attack them indiscriminately? Please try to look beyond Catholicism and Protestantism, and study those 'other' Christians you barely talk about: The Orthodox Christians in Armenia, Ethiopia and Egypt have always been victims, but never aggressors, so Christians worldwide could learn something valuable from these communities. Atheists, if they are honest with what they are doing, they should first make research on such Christian societies before starting to mock God.
Posted by: Abraham | October 7, 2008 4:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
First, Maher shuns the word atheist as a self-description, finding it to be as defining as those who proclaim their faith in religious dogma. He is an agnostic--one who admits that he does not know the truth. Secondly, while it is true that there are certain people in every faith who have made accommodations to science and the modern world, there remain fundamentalists in every faith as well who reject everything that science tells us. So, the key question, it seems to me, is how does one go about accepting or rejecting each piece of religious dogma while still holding on to the essentials of what makes a Jew, Christian or Muslim. How do you reject the literalism of Genesis without putting your whole religion at risk, since if that literalism is wrong why shouldn't other aspects of the religion be incorrect as well? If you take the position that religion is at base philosophical and presents tenets for how to live--a position I can agree with as an agnostic--that stance seems to give up the special status of religion as being a unique fiat from a Supreme Being.
Posted by: Joseph Turner, Sr. | October 7, 2008 4:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
According to the movie, religion is the cause of all (or most) of the evils of human history, and atheism would lead us to the promised land of science and sanity, if only we gave it a chance. Unfortunately, we have--Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il Sung have all acted in the name of atheism. Of course, the movie doesn't even hint that such a pro-atheist movement ever existed. Perhaps the cause of evil isn't religion, just human greed and ignorance?
Posted by: Tom ODonnell | October 7, 2008 4:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The taxi is waiting, sounding its horn...
Gotta go...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 3:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Lohengrin, Prof Berlinerblau is an atheist! Ha! ha! ha!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 3:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The problem with a religious conservative reviewing an atheistic comedy on god and religion is that it is so predictably negative. I started to read the article with a small hope of being surprised, but realized that I would not be after a few sentences.
The question to M. Berlinerblau is: Why bother?
Posted by: Lohengrin | October 7, 2008 3:43 AM
I was relieved to read most of the comments to Berlinerblau: there are a lot more of us "New Atheists" than you would think. Bill Maher is right, we need to voice our views more often and louder and not be afraid to become social outcasts in the process. I grew up in Europe, and even after 27 years in this country, I could not believe such places as the Florida theme park existed! American zealots have nothing to envy other religions zealots. I enjoy Bill Maher's show, it is a breath of fresh air. Glad to know I am not alone.