Thread: Thank-you Bill Maher

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yes. Often, and in many settings

You stole my thunder Lee!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yes. Often, and in many settings

I don't really know what you meant by this comment.

I made that point in my own post.

(Mark also) Can I hope it wasn't intended to be a snide rebuke? I was trying to get at what is fundamentally wrong in these situations that are obviously and egregiously offensive, and remove the burden of blame from the particular people who usually recieve it, not chastize you or anyone else in our midst.

Russell no I should have been more clear.

I agree with what you said. I was referring to previous statements in the thread that lump together folks together into either religious or non religious in order to make blanket statements. Maybe I should have left it alone

No harm, no foul, friend.

Tht's just one of the negatives of internet communication; words are even more subject to interpretation and misunderstanding than in general speech.

p.s. your avatar is making my avatar anxious, Otto loves to "play" with cats, though they don't seem to share his sentiments.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I don't really know what you meant by this comment.

I made that point in my own post.

(Mark also) Can I hope it wasn't intended to be a snide rebuke? I was trying to get at what is fundamentally wrong in these situations that are obviously and egregiously offensive, and remove the burden of blame from the particular people who usually recieve it, not chastize you or anyone else in our midst.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Russell no I should have been more clear.

I agree with what you said. I was referring to previous statements in the thread that lump together folks together into either religious or non religious in order to make blanket statements. Maybe I should have left it alone

What Lee said! And it goes way beyond the subject matter of this thread!

In other words, I agree with you!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

What are you getting at? That statement seems to be randomly tossed into your post. I'm not even sure what it means

It's not random, if you go back and read the defenders of religion, they defend all religion as a whole. This is done by intoning that religious people are some how more moral and ethical than non-religious people. I have not noticed that secularist or atheists, saying that all secularists or atheists are better.

In fact secularists and atheists are grouped together not by their beliefs but by what they don't believe. Where religious followers are grouped together by a common belief, that belief is in a common supernatural creator and a religious dogma that has answers to all life's question.

Originally Posted by Hutch

religious followers are grouped together by a common belief, that belief is in a common supernatural creator and a religious dogma that has answers to all life's question.

Are you sure?

Originally Posted by Hutch

It's not random, if you go back and read the defenders of religion, they defend all religion as a whole. This is done by intoning that religious people are some how more moral and ethical than non-religious people. I have not noticed that secularist or atheists, saying that all secularists or atheists are better.

In fact secularists and atheists are grouped together by not their beliefs but by what they don't believe. Where religious followers are grouped together by a common belief, that belief is in a common supernatural creator and a religious dogma that has answers to all life's question.

Isn't that the whole point of the film? A smug sense of intellectual superiority to the irrational beliefs of religious adherents?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Isn't that the whole point of the film? A smug sense of intellectual superiority to the irrational beliefs of religious adherents?

Have you seen it?

I would say it's a exploration of religion and the blind following of a man made dogma.

If you want to term it as a smug sense of intelligent superiority so be, as apposed to the fear induced religious following that condemns fellow mammals that happen to believe in a different form of worship or non belief into an eternity to torment and torture. You tell me which group professes superiority.

Has anyone else seen this?

Bill does come off as a little self righteous, but he's a comedian and his tone of voice hasn't changed in years, this movie is no different from his stand-up shows.

The main things that I got from the movie are:

1) Every person who considers himmself religious knows what his holy book "really" means, despite what generations of theologians, church officials, and other citizen's have interpreted the books to mean.

2) There is never an account in a holy book that actually calls for violence, those parts are metaphorical, despite what the words say.

3) Amazingly (or not), a person's interpretation of religion is an extension of what they would do if they were God.

4) Our country is far too willing to let religious individuals exercise their religious beliefs within a political office.

And his conclusion, as I understood it, isn't nearly as inflamatory as it has been made out to be, read between the lines about what we need to do and I think everyone can find common ground.