The best movie trailer this summer. watch!
youtube.com — Religulous Trailer in HD.
motafett- 3842 diggs
- digg it
- BennyGreenberg, on 07/20/2008, -35/+170Bless me father for I have sinned - it has been "40 years" since my last confession... great line!
- deSouza3, on 07/21/2008, -10/+3It's funny because of the paradox
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/21/2008, -16/+45Meh... the Watchmen trailer was a lot better than this.
- oneoverzero, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4I'm more excited about The Watchmen, but the trailer was kinda lacking. It did wonders to reassure me that the movie won't be a bastardization of the graphic novel, but I can't help but think that people that haven't read it won't have their feelings (or lack thereof) changed by the trailer. Basically it was good for the fans, but bad for anybody who isn't a fan yet.
Arguably, that's just an effective use of the previous fanbase, but still. - identifiedlogo, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1agreed...Whats the sound track they played on the trailer? it seemed extremely appropriate... somehow.
- blahtastic, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I've never read it and barely ever heard of The Watchmen aside from seeing that smiley logo a few times, but after the pre-Dark Night trailer I'll be damned if I'm not going to see it.
- CrazyEddie041, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Actually, I might just go and pick up the novels. I poked around on Wikipedia a bit, and it looks pretty cool.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1The soundtrack in the trailer is a new slower tempo version of the Smashing Pumpkins song: "The End Is The Beginning Is The End"
- oneoverzero, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4I'm more excited about The Watchmen, but the trailer was kinda lacking. It did wonders to reassure me that the movie won't be a bastardization of the graphic novel, but I can't help but think that people that haven't read it won't have their feelings (or lack thereof) changed by the trailer. Basically it was good for the fans, but bad for anybody who isn't a fan yet.
- Magachan, on 07/21/2008, -2/+4Reminds me of californication somehow:P
- jawagas, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I can see that. David has a similar cool composure
- palpacino, on 07/21/2008, -2/+19did you see the "cover" or the movie poster of the movie on wikipedia? I love that. It says they originally they wanted to release this documentary around easter time just to piss some more people off, lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous
(not that you guys can't google, but there's the link)- tehknotte, on 07/21/2008, -24/+5I don't think it will piss as many people off as you think. Those who have true faith cannot be shaken by things like this.
- CanTheSpam, on 07/21/2008, -4/+9Do you realize how scary you sound?
- DanMiller, on 07/21/2008, -3/+18"those with true faith cannot be shaken by things like this"
Translation: Those with true faith will never alter or reevaluate their beliefs despite overwelming incite or knowledge indicating otherwise. - CrazyEddie041, on 07/21/2008, -2/+6Proper re-interpretation: people with true faith can take a joke. We don't all try to have people killed because of comics.
- tehknotte, on 07/21/2008, -2/+3LOL i am being dugg down because i am showing that this movie doesn't bother me or many others who have religion in their lives. good for you... good for you...
@canthespam: it may sound scary to someone who has no religion in their lives but if you have faith in your religion, and you have that connection, things like this can't change your mind.
@crazyeddie: yes thats along the lines of what i meant. - LeeSoong, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Science vs. Faith Flow Chart:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Science_ver ...
As seen on Digg:
http://digg.com/comedy/Science_vs_Faith_flowchart_ ...
- goosegoosegoose, on 07/21/2008, -17/+9No, it's actually not. Just because Bill Maher says it does not make it genius.
- TheSkylar, on 07/21/2008, -3/+7No one said that it was "genius"..so why was that statement needed?
- goosegoosegoose, on 07/21/2008, -5/+5Uh, the 63 diggs seem to imply an overwhelming agreement with the statement that the line was "great." Not too hard to deduce little Jimmy.
- bsl4doc, on 07/21/2008, -2/+12great =/= genius.
lrn moar english plz - goosegoosegoose, on 07/21/2008, -11/+2I think I know a wee bit more about the English language than you jimbag
- dadeef, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5he's not your jimbag, pal.
- zimbra, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2That line was used in an episode of Cracker over 10 years ago.
- SuperWinner, on 07/21/2008, -3/+8Creationists believe in a Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Where is the problem? - Muslim4Life, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1Good one.
Gay "Muslim"? Oxymoron. Throw them off a cliff!
- Ringleader, on 07/20/2008, -35/+280When Bill accepts the Academy Award for best documentary, I hope he raises that statue high and shouts out an NFL style "THANK YOU JESUUUUUUS!"
- galeninjapan, on 07/21/2008, -30/+3 You don't see too many documentaries do you?
- caborobo, on 07/21/2008, -2/+33You don't have much of a sense of humor do you?
- antiorblkflag9, on 07/21/2008, -12/+64I'd like to thank Jesus Christ, Jehova God almighty, for my number one hit single. It's called "Suck yo' mama." Peace out. WHITE PEOPLE DIE!
- Tallon29, on 07/21/2008, -1/+12Pablo Fransisco = automatic digg
- nickrct, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7Yea I don't know why you're getting dugg down, but any Pablo reference gets an automatic digg from me
- teekay87, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1respect!
- poprocksandsoda, on 07/21/2008, -2/+4It's about time too ... his work in DC Cab was highly underated.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085387/- Charlotte_Web, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3I always thought Maher's first big role was Body Double in 1984, but that was Craig Wasson. It's uncanny how much they look alike; Wasson could be Maher's twin brother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5r4a0217z4
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3I always thought Maher's first big role was Body Double in 1984, but that was Craig Wasson. It's uncanny how much they look alike; Wasson could be Maher's twin brother:
- jair428, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8Im rooting for Maher but,
doubt the "Guild" will give him an Academy Award. - XanderDee, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1He is in dangerous territory it like telling people the US dollar is just paper and has no intrinsic value cuz it can be created easily making people poorer with out them knowing. oops did I say that Never mind my crazy ass DOLLARS are good as gold and in god we trust.
- galeninjapan, on 07/21/2008, -30/+3 You don't see too many documentaries do you?
- jordansky, on 07/20/2008, -56/+8Buried as duplicate, this made front page a while ago: http://digg.com/movies/Bill_Maher_s_Religulous_Mov ...
- jdmcadam, on 07/21/2008, -0/+26Your comment burried as a duplicate of thousands of others.
- suttercain, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5Digg because this should be on the front page everyday!
- dildoolielly, on 07/21/2008, -4/+24----"Myspace is gay"----
----"Let's face it - you could get hit by a BUS tomorrow. go on- HAVE A FAG"----
----"Wow, gay."----
----"Reddit=Gay"----
----"Canada was the country that let things slide, like gay weddings,..."----
"jordansky", WTF is wrong with you, man?! Are you some kind of retarded closet *****? Are you a repressed homosexual or something?
Just look at your posts. "Queer" this and "fag" that, all the time. What are you so afraid of, dude?!
Don't be surprised if that closet door of yours starts to open!- jimmick, on 07/21/2008, -0/+12Dugg for owned
- balwanir2000, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2hahahahahhahahahahaha1!!!. dugg for excellent detective skills!!!
- AutoTom, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7seriously man STFU
if we're digging a duplicate we obviously havnt seen it or want to see it again
- timbococ, on 07/20/2008, -37/+210Duplicate. Also, why watch it YouTube quality when you can see it HD...?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulou ...- thepolkapunk, on 07/21/2008, -36/+75Why? Because quicktime is bloatware I refuse to install on my machine.
- Mononuclear, on 07/21/2008, -2/+47There are several quicktime alternatives that you can install to play qt media but not have to install quicktime itself.
- username7410, on 07/21/2008, -10/+52You a RealPlayer kinda man?
- FatherG, on 07/21/2008, -2/+37protip: vlc plays .mov
- DarkDx, on 07/21/2008, -12/+18Another loser that feels better bashing quicktime instead of looking for an alternative.
Also quicktime in mac os x is good. - iChainsaw, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1I installed some third party codec and I love it.
- Chris1280, on 07/21/2008, -6/+11The quicktime plugin crashes my firefox and im lazy. And youtube has favoriting, a profile system, comments and a universal feel. Plus its not apple.com.
- KMartSheriff, on 07/21/2008, -5/+4Someone's been drinking the haterade.
- LeeSoong, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Absolutely hate the 2 MB+ blue 'Q' it insists on auto-loading into the Start bar.
Why does it do that ?
If you want to use QuickTime, use it
Apple, please don't waste CPU and RAM resources by always and forever loading a little bit of quicktime into Windows at every start up...
- username7410, on 07/21/2008, -7/+50Because it's a trailer more a documentary, not Terminator 4.
- TheGreatBelow, on 07/21/2008, -27/+7Quicktime? You ***** failure.
- AZTriGuy, on 07/21/2008, -4/+23Why? Because it's Bill Maher . . . why do I need to see him in HD? Yeah, this is one I can't wait to come out on Blu-Ray . . .
Seriously, though, looks like a good flick. - praisethelard, on 07/21/2008, -1/+43Didn't you see the title of the Youtube movie? It is HD!
- ralphthemagi, on 07/21/2008, -8/+5I don't know how this whole "HD" fad started on YouTube. Honestly, I'd be happy if we could get an encoding profile for YouTube that was SD, but YouTube isn't even close to that.
- Archon810, on 07/21/2008, -2/+3Here's the Youtube h264 MP4 link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77L8atrzbTo&fmt=18. Not HD but at least it's not a ***** H263 FLV.
- kr3mliyn, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Tried that when posting a link on Facebook before. Doesn't work man.
...and by doesn't work I mean it displays in normal quality. - Archon810, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1It works, as long as you have flash 9.0.115. I looked at the http headers and it's playing an mp4 in that link.
- kr3mliyn, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Tried that when posting a link on Facebook before. Doesn't work man.
- Falsey, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5Because it loads much faster. Youtube already takes about double the time to load as it takes to play on my connection. That's why.
- FanofFilm, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1wow, slow connection eh? mine loads up youtube much faster than play time. and i can click anywhere in the timeline and it starts loading from that point without a hiccup. also, i'm pretty sure my penis is way bigger.
- darienphoenix, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2...did we seriously just take down apple.com?
- darienphoenix, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8No, I'm just an idiot, and left PeerGuardian on.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Teh Internetz brokn!!! Oh wait computer isn't plugged in.
- shadowmoose, on 07/21/2008, -7/+2***** you, quicktime crashes my firefox.
- thepolkapunk, on 07/21/2008, -36/+75Why? Because quicktime is bloatware I refuse to install on my machine.
- hmd1987, on 07/20/2008, -119/+13it takes just as much faith to believe in nothing at all.
we're all religious. some pray to Al Gore, some to Bush, some to talk show hosts,
some to the government in general....i could go on but I'm exhausted- AzBats, on 07/21/2008, -2/+25i have non-religious faith in people and it honestly doesn't need to be any more than that
- MJG2007, on 07/21/2008, -3/+60Who are these people you hang with that pray to Al Gore, Bush, talk show hosts, and the government?
I had no idea the Internet was available at mental institutions.- DforSpiD, on 07/21/2008, -2/+7Then you've never been to 4chan...
- flashback99, on 07/21/2008, -4/+36I love it when the religious try to make sense of atheism / agnosticism. An exercise in futility.
- DooM, on 07/21/2008, -2/+26Not all Atheists believe in nothing at all they simply reject ridiculous claims that don't stand up to the sniff test.
- chispito, on 07/21/2008, -22/+0It's not so much that I'm concerned with atheists believing in nothing, it's more that I'm troubled by them believing in whatever is convenient.
No ethics system based on personal whim or a "herd instinct" passes the "moral" sniff test. Take away God and we are left with nothing but survival of the fittest, which we institutionally violate by throwing resources at the weak and the sick, instead of removing their substandard genes from the population.
But then, here I am on Digg trying to tell the choir that the preaching is bad. Silly me. - rationalist, on 07/21/2008, -2/+241) religious people believe in whatever is convenient - as shown by the extremely strong correlation between the religion of the family and the community that you were born in, and the religion you practice.
2) It is actually more challenging (and, at least some of us who have made the effort would say, more rewarding) to arrive at a system of ethics and a moral code based upon reason and logic, rather than to unthinkingly and unquestioningly accepting dogma written by someone else.
3) Ethics systems are not based on personal whim - there are plenty of them written by philosophers over the ages, which you can ponder, if you still find it too tough to start from scratch on your own
4) "herd instinct" is a phrase that logically fits religious follower better (see #1).
5) "Survival of the fittest" is not the alternative to God, it is merely the misapplication of the theory of biological evolution via natural selection to the development of human society. The phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin, and it has been utterly discredited, because human societies do not evolve at the time scale or using the primary mechanisms of biological evolution. It was a poor, primitive analogy, and only the misinformed (and the religious) still invoke it as some kind of evil talisman.
6) your characterization of human weak and sick as having "substandard genes", and your self-contradictory condemnation of human compassion, besides revealing the inability to maintain a point even within a single sentence (if we "institutionally violate" survival of the fittest without God, that would seem to undermine your claim that, without God, we are left with nothing but), also reveals a frightening ignorance about science and genetics.
7) Why are you on digg, if:
a) you believe it to be your mission to tell atheists how empty, evil and immoral they are, and
b) you believe diggers to be all a bunch of immoral atheists, and
c) you believe it is futile to show us the error of our ways?
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I could be referring to religious prayer, but I'm actually referring to your "telling the choir that the preaching is bad". If you are so frightened by our lack of morality, go be a good choir boy to some pedophile preacher and leave us alone with our "institutional" compassion. - hmd1987, on 07/21/2008, -11/+1you all totally misunderstood what i meant.
i had no idea the internet was available to people who don't understand satire.
what i said wasn't meant to be taken literally.
i'm surrounded by idiots. - DooM, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5THe CHristian God's moral code can be summed in one word: duh. And actually, some of the old testament stuff can be summed up in two: wait.. what?!
I don't need a book to tell me that stealing or killing people is wrong - my 5 year old knows it instinctively. The bible is NOT some well-thought-out moral code and it certainly loses tons of points for its moral rules for who and when and how to stone people to death for ridiculous things. It loses points for crazy morality like if your brother dies you have to knock up his wife. Yeah THAT'S a GREAT idea - that's not an obvious moral choice so it's no wonder it took God to think that one up!
Please give me ONE example of morality found in the bible that one does not get in a normal household of any kind, of any faith or no faith at all.
@HMD - you might want to look up satire because none of what you posted fits the description even upon re-read. Fail for the attempt and Fail for trying to paint everyone who knows better as an idiot.
- chispito, on 07/21/2008, -22/+0It's not so much that I'm concerned with atheists believing in nothing, it's more that I'm troubled by them believing in whatever is convenient.
- robdiggity, on 07/21/2008, -4/+4Yeah, nobody prays to those people.
Thank BuddahAllahJeebus you were exhausted. I doubt my duodenum could have withstood more of your inanity. - B1663r, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5Thank you for clarifying the difference between atheism and nihilism;)
- BetterOffEd, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5You're so horribly confused, I don't even know where to begin.
- rationalist, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5It takes just as much effort not to collect stamps as to collect stamps.
Uh, no. - godofpumpkins, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6we are not nihilists :) just atheists :) I believe many things, but bearded old men who send me to eternal fire and flames for having sex with my girlfriend don't figure into those beliefs.
- hmd1987, on 07/21/2008, -4/+1you all totally misunderstood what i meant.
i had no idea the internet was available to people who don't understand satire.
what i said wasn't meant to be taken literally.
i'm surrounded by idiots.- goodposter, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4shut up, bitch.
- hmd1987, on 07/21/2008, -6/+1hahahhahahahahahhahahhahaah.
case and point, 12 year old. - StefanArak, on 07/21/2008, -1/+0Well, it was a ***** piece of satire, so I can see where he's coming from.
- hmd1987, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1I'll admit it was a little weak, i was tired too.
But I also have over +100 diggs for being satirical on an obama piece.
Even more so, I have over +400 diggs for being sarcastic on that video of the guy
texting on his cell phone while riding his motorcycle. - DooM, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1So stop the whining already - you're funny sometimes, so here's a cookie. We all say things that get buried from time to time - if we all agreed about everything why would we bother talking?
It's "case IN point", btw. :P - Phyraxus, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1@ hmd1987: When it comes to politics, it is a bit easier to tell what is a satire and what isn't, but with religion all bets are off.
- picturestorm, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5-80 diggs my friend, maybe you dont understand satire
- hmd1987, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1I'll admit it was a little weak, i was tired too.
But I also have over +100 diggs for being satirical on an obama piece.
Even more so, I have over +400 diggs for being sarcastic on that video of the guy
texting on his cell phone while riding his motorcycle. - picturestorm, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Respect to you for saying it was weak!
- hmd1987, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1I'll admit it was a little weak, i was tired too.
- woodrow8292, on 07/20/2008, -74/+14The best part is one day we will all find out which side of this argument is right. I would hate to be Bill if he is proven wrong in the end.
- salomejones, on 07/21/2008, -3/+56I would hate to be you *right now*.
- Phyraxus, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4Genius.
- punchingjudy, on 07/21/2008, -4/+17Wow, that sure was prideful. Isn't that a sin? Hmm!
- woodrow8292, on 07/21/2008, -10/+1Ummm no it was just a simple observation that I would not like to be him if he is wrong nothing prideful in that just stating my opinion.
- parrotheadpsu, on 07/21/2008, -2/+11Why? The people that should be worried are the people that run around doing god-awful things in God's name. Things like using the legal system to take the rights from gays, condemning others for not believing that God is some sort of petty bigot who only requires what some define as "belief" to be "saved", and killing heathens. I don't think Bill has anything to worry about if God does or does not exist.
- Mononuclear, on 07/21/2008, -3/+7I would love to see the look on everyone's face at the end (assuming there is an end which there isn't). Everyone thinks their one religion is the only true religion so lets assume one is right that means most of the world is going to hell. The chances that you are in the one right one are infinitesimal. BTW the mormons are the only ones who have it right so everyone else is going to hell and will be very disseminated. If they are right and I am in hell I will be laughing because all the other jerks who thought they were better than me will be there too.
- Esstee, on 07/21/2008, -4/+1Well there alot of bad news in store for you my friend(hehe).
First all there is an end and it's inescapable as we will all inevitably find out.
Secondly, there is no such thing as hell(strange doctrine).
And lastly, it is quite easy to decipher who is walking with God in this world, just look for those who imitate Christ within there lifestyles.
PS. if there ever was a hell, I vote that we are sitting in it right now! - cheers - Mononuclear, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4Well then that is good news. I imitate Christ in my lifestyle but I don't believe in him or God so how does that work?
- Esstee, on 07/21/2008, -4/+1Well there alot of bad news in store for you my friend(hehe).
- BetterOffEd, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7You know, if "God" is omniscient, then he/she/it knows if you're just believing in he/she/it "just in case."
- goodposter, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3WoodRow Is a Stupid person.
- KhanneaNL, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Yah because if me or bill is wrong we sure are screwed, because god is sending us to his personal little auschwitz, not just to kill us in a short while, nooo, to have his torture-bitch satan torture *TORTURE* us for more than a year, ten years, a hundred years, nay more than that - thousands of years.
***** off, you should be arrested and locked up for saying that. Saying that to a child is child abuse. Saying that to me will get you a glass bottle in your face.- woodrow8292, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Wow. Everyone attacks Christianity and the belief in God but one person makes a comment about how it would suck to wrong if you don't believe and now you want to break a bottle over my head. Not sure I have seen any believers threaten anyone like that.
- KhanneaNL, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I am not sorry buddy. Think about it - religions have been literally THREATENING everyone with an eternity of concentration camp. these are the plain facts. To atheists and assorted nonbelievers (or people with another religion) this can only be interpreted as the most insulting, spit-in-your-face fantasy play sadomasochistic fantasy possible. But you whimper a little how *rude* these nonbelievers are. DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE or are you in cognitive dissonance, *****?
THE WHOLE IDEA OF HELL IS THE WORST INSULT POSSIBLE.
- PokerGigolo, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1The very fact that there is more than one religious belief system in the world is proof positive that Christianity is full of it.
The fact that Christianity is the largest and most successful cult the world has ever known hasn't changed the fact that the other religions exist. Isn't the Christian God supposed to smite those that worship "false idols"? Why are all these Muslims and Buddhists and Jews still walking around? Shouldn't they all have been struck by lightning or something by now?
I have no problem with Christians, except that they use every opportunity to try to shove their superstitious tribal nonsense down my throat. It's Christianity itself that's the problem. It's a cult, plain and simple. Any reasonable definition of cult describes Christianity perfectly.
The church leaders developed an admittedly brilliant marketing campaign thousands of years ago, and have used it ever since to bilk untold trillions of dollars from innocent, unthinking people in order to fund their programs of child molestation, genocide, and hatred towards anyone that disagrees with them. And if anyone questions anything about their doctrine, the simple reply is and always has been "well, it's a mystery."
Have you ever seen Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist TV evangelists? Of course not. Why? Because those religions aren't based on the idea of taking as much money from people as possible. At least other religions actually stick to their beliefs, as preposterous as some of them are. Christianity, on the other hand, picks and chooses which beliefs they're going to follow today based on what will have the most populist appeal and therefore draw more money into their coffers. I promise you that if there was any money to be made in supporting gay marriage, the Christian Church would be all over it.
- salomejones, on 07/21/2008, -3/+56I would hate to be you *right now*.
- fool13, on 07/21/2008, -72/+29I respect agnostics/athetists for their beliefs but that feeling is rarely recipricated. It's funny how the large majority of them are bitter and cynical about religion. You choose what you want for your faith and I'll choose mine. But ***** off with this we're better than you mentality because you're not.
- AzBats, on 07/21/2008, -6/+33Haven't you figured out why yet?
- egoideal, on 07/21/2008, -3/+55That's funny, considering you believe in a religion that calls atheists and agnostics evil and immoral. And logic and reason are ALWAYS better than blind faith.
- salomejones, on 07/21/2008, -5/+36Being less susceptible to superstition does not make one person better than another. But it does make the more rational.
- ozziegt, on 07/21/2008, -16/+3Not really. But thanks for proving fool13 right!
- curtisag, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2I guess that depends on what makes a person "better" than another, which is highly subjective. Rationality in general is a positive trait, since lack of rationality could lead to many negative things happening to you and those around you. If superstition doesn't yield anything superior to rationality for a person, then clearly one person can be better than the other.
- salomejones, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3@curtisag: That's true, and I do apologize if my reply came off as a little snarky, I certainly didn't mean it that way.
Positive rationality is excellent for specific things, like scientists, doctors, and I wish politicians...but it is not necessary or even useful for other things, like art, theology, certain kinds of music, etc. The problem happens when someone who isn't rational is in a profession that requires it, and also when someone who is very rational is in a field of strong subjectivity, where rationality is best left at the door. Both have massive benefits, and massive drawbacks, depending on what the person embedded in one or the other tries to do with it.
Here's an example: Some of the most (subjectively) incredible ever created was done so under the heavy influence of mood-altering and psychedelic drugs, rendering the musician utterly irrational during the period of composition or jamming.
Another example are writers, particularly of such English classics as Frankenstein, Khubla Khan, Breakfast at Tiffany's, etc. It's important to remember that "rationality" is just another model of perceiving the universe--one that is very useful, but not for everything. - curtisag, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1You make an excellent point, but someone could rationally conclude that mind alteration is a great way to expand the horizons of the human consciousness. I don't view them separately. Some of the best ideas I've ever had came while I was high. But I still view myself as a rational person that safely uses drugs.
However, you hit directly on the primary problem with superstition/religion and why it's bad for society. Politicians and people in important positions should be free of such negative influences that could cause irrational decision making. Just look at Bush and the irrational decisions he has made.
One thing is for sure though, superstition never directly gave anybody the creative power to write a great work of literature or music. That came from their own imagination.
- wastern, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8it comes from both sides. A lot of agnostics and atheists are blasted with christian ideals all the time and are views as less of a person because of their lack of belief.
Some take the stance of the best defense being a strong offense. If nothing else getting people to understand that not believing in god doesn't make you an inherently bad person would be a good thing. There are good and bad people in every belief structure on earth- duo8675309, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Comment of the year, imo.
- santabanana, on 07/21/2008, -3/+17"I respect agnostics/athetists for their beliefs". I would change two things about that statement: Athetist for Atheist, and beliefs for reasoning.
- Mononuclear, on 07/21/2008, -1/+20I respect all religions for their beliefs but that feeling is rarely recipricated. It's funny how the large majority of them are bitter and cynical about atheism, gays, evolution and science. You choose what you want for your faith and I'll choose mine. But ***** off with this we're better than you mentality because you're not.
- curtisag, on 07/21/2008, -2/+15That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, I am better than a religious person, because I value reason over superstition and ignorance.
Furthermore, you represent like less than 10% of the religious people, as most religious people do not respect us. And no politician can admit he is atheist and win major office, especially President, because of the bias against atheism. So I think I do have something to be bitter about. The fact we have an idiot religious nut like Bush in office is a national disgrace, and religious people are more to blame than anybody. They followed him like the sheep they are. And he thinks an invisible man in the sky likes his foreign policy... hello? How can I not be cynical?- ddawggin, on 07/21/2008, -10/+3You're also an arrogant person, for arbitrarily generalizing such a large portion of the world. Not every religious person likes Bush.
For every view there are extremes: There are religious nuts on one side and elitist pricks on the other. - goosegoosegoose, on 07/21/2008, -11/+2You're no better than anyone, get off your high horse and go back to protesting religious festivals.
- Phyraxus, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Well, it seems ddawggin and goose^3 may agree that reason > supersition + ignorance, but... they disagree that a reasonable person is better than a non-reasonable person... that doesn't really seem reasonable... maybe because they aren't reasonable and thus they won't concede that they are unreasonable, hence a worse of a person than he is. That may explain the ad hominems.
- ddawggin, on 07/21/2008, -10/+3You're also an arrogant person, for arbitrarily generalizing such a large portion of the world. Not every religious person likes Bush.
- queestaesto, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4Maybe they are bitter and cynical about religion because it is the religious that try to force belief upon them every day. "Y-O-U don't BELIEVE in G-O-D?!?" "Ohhhh, you're going to burn in Hell forever because you don't embrace Jesus and his father, God almighty!" Even the religious politicians try to force their belief on the entire population. It's supposed to be separation of Church and State! Policies should be based on facts and truth, not because someone thinks (ex.) those who get/perform abortions are in cahoots with Satan and need saving.
Hearing this all the time from every outlet...I'm sure many are sick of it and just want to be left alone. God, please make them go away! - fool13, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Atheist, not sure why i threw an extra t in there but anyway - I'm not the most religious person in the world, in fact I rarely attend church. For me my faith is personal and doesn't require me to go to church. I'm a protestant if that matters, that's how I was raised and at this point in my life I have no reason to NOT believe in god. My thoughts are what exactly is gained by not believing? It gives me a certain feeling of comfort by praying whether or not it actually helps. I don't pray for things that are controllable and don't pray for world peace. I don't ask for forgiveness nor want to be relieved of my sins. I pray for things that may be out of my control such as the health of my family or if someone is sick for them to get better. Religion is a personal choice so I guess my point is let those who choose religion to be a part of it and though who choose not to believe to enjoy what comes with that.
There is a difference between blind faith - the person out of work praying for a job to come along instead of going out and finding one and choosing to be spiritual. Choosing not to have anything to do with spirituality doesn't make you more rational, it makes you someone who chooses not to participate in religion because you found something that works for you.- curtisag, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4All faith is blind faith, because it requires no evidence and is tied mainly to emotions of fear of death and aloneness. You believe what you believe because you were raised to do so from a young age. You are a victim of the last form of legal child abuse, religious indoctrination. What if we let our children grow up to the age of 18 before we exposed them to belief systems and taught them about God? Let them make their own choices when they're old enough to do so. Wouldn't that be great? But instead we fill their little heads with concepts like eternal life that puts their minds at ease, but have to close their minds in the process.
You ask what's so great about not believing in God, well it's the freedom of my mind that comes with it that's so great for me. If I could program your mind so you would believe you would never die, would you really want me to? You would lose part of yourself. You would be spared the negative emotion of fear of death if I did, but it's not worth it. If your parents die tomorrow in a car crash, would you want me to wipe that event from your memory and implant a false one? - Phyraxus, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2"I'm a protestant if that matters, that's how I was raised and at this point in my life I have no reason to NOT believe in god."
The question is, what reason do you have TO believe in god? Because that's how you were raised? That's not a very good reason at all, considering all that entails with the belief in the supernatural.
"My thoughts are what exactly is gained by not believing? It gives me a certain feeling of comfort by praying whether or not it actually helps."
In other words, "Let's all go out and lie to children so we can see smiles on their faces." What you don't see is the very real fear of eternal hellfire that their friends will end up suffering, if they happen to be of a different religion. - rationalist, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural--that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world--not even in infinite space. I was free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live to my own ideal--free to live for myself and those I loved--free to use all my faculties, all my senses--free to spread imagination's wings--free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope--free to judge and determine for myself--free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past--free from popes and priests--free from all the "called" and "set apart"--free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies--free from the fear of eternal pain--free from the winged monsters of the night--free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought--no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings--no chains for my limbs--no lashes for my back--no fires for my flesh--no master's frown or threat--no following another's steps--no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain--for the freedom of labor and thought--to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains--to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs--to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn--to those by fire consumed--to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still." --Robert Ingersoll
- curtisag, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4All faith is blind faith, because it requires no evidence and is tied mainly to emotions of fear of death and aloneness. You believe what you believe because you were raised to do so from a young age. You are a victim of the last form of legal child abuse, religious indoctrination. What if we let our children grow up to the age of 18 before we exposed them to belief systems and taught them about God? Let them make their own choices when they're old enough to do so. Wouldn't that be great? But instead we fill their little heads with concepts like eternal life that puts their minds at ease, but have to close their minds in the process.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/21/2008, -2/+3"I respect you, but you are bitter and cynical and I find that funny"
We're not bitter, just tired of hearing retards like you ***** from their mouths thinking they're making a point.- fool13, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1Way to turn my point in something it wasn't. Reread what I typed. *****, go ***** yourself.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2http://playgrounduprising.files.wordpress.com/2007 ...
- Spor, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1But they are better
- KhanneaNL, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1You just have no idea do you, how much TORMENT you bastards have caused me?
- Arcesius, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2You follow a religion that says I'm going to be punished with endless misery for all eternity....... yet you respect me?... Explain.
- t3hmyth, on 07/21/2008, -43/+132I'm a Born-Again Christian, but Bill Mahrer looks like he's made an AWESOME film. Also, I must say, "Expelled" was a really BAD documentary...
- Backstab, on 07/21/2008, -6/+65Expelled was a mockumentary about how intelligence design is dumb, right?
- MJG2007, on 07/21/2008, -2/+26I don't think that was their intent, but, yes...it didn't really do much for the creationism movement. (I refuse to call it intelligent design).
- t3hmyth, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4Because of my faith, I was willing to give it a shot, but because it was just so poorly done as a film, I found it totally uninteresting.
- Phyraxus, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Poe's Law
- LeeSoong, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Intelligent Design on Trial :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
- HeyArnold, on 07/21/2008, -6/+38So, you think this is awesome because its invalidating your beliefs?
I just need you to elaborate.- t3hmyth, on 07/21/2008, -2/+54Not because it's "invalidating" my beliefs, but because Maher has shown that he's taken both sides of what he's doing. Not only is he going to talk with those who see religion as an "opiate for the masses" but he's also challening the beliefs of various faiths, something that a religious person should be prepared to do. If they can't, well, then this community is right in stating that they have no logical reason to belive in it. And above all, he's going to make it funny.
- ericjohnson0, on 07/21/2008, -17/+2He's lying. 'Discredit by Association' agrument. Typical liberal ploy.
- tidu, on 07/21/2008, -1/+14Just because one doesn't agree with a film's message doesn't mean they won't laugh, or enjoy the movie as a whole.
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 07/21/2008, -23/+14I'm also a Christian and I'm sure the movie is funny. I'm also sure Bill sought out the craziest nut job religious people he could find (and there is no shortage of them) to interview. The problem I have is that most people lump all Christians into the nut job category along with these people. I will not see the movie because it makes me angry that Bill would encourage people to make fun of those who believe differently.
tehmyth, it's "Christians" like you who ride both sides of the fence that give us the image of being hypocrites. You should decide what you believe and stop trying to serve 2 masters. - wwwdot1jesdotus, on 07/21/2008, -5/+4By the way I agree that Expelled was not done well.
- HeyArnold, on 07/21/2008, -8/+2Fair enough t3hmyth. Though I cant really fully understand your stance on it, (im athiest or agnostic depending on my mood, lol) It is cool that they are equally covering both sides.
- fool13, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3Agreed, I started watching Real time last season and although I disagreed with half the crap he spewed out of his mouth it was pretty funny. Nice change to get some political talk from him instead of the usual dry boring cnn and co. Most likely will check out the movie when it comes to dvd if the reviews are solid enough.
- dksupremacy, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3He did for the Diggs
- ngmcs8203, on 07/21/2008, -1/+37Jesus Camp was great as well.
- getbusyliving, on 07/21/2008, -17/+8What's so AWESOME about someone demonstrating how your belief's are completely bat-***** insane?
- Anthropoid, on 07/21/2008, -1/+13I for one consider myself Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus, but I don't agree with all the teachings of the church (at least not the churches with which I am somewhat familiar). So, though a Christian by my own standards, I can see some of Maher's points. And regardless of beliefs, this trailer had some funny moments.
- millerftw, on 07/21/2008, -9/+10@anthropoid.
Either the bible was written by god or it wasn't. If it was then you need to follow everything it says, If it wasn't your religion is *****. You cannot cherry pick your religion. - smotpoker, on 07/21/2008, -2/+8@millerftw -
The bible was written by man, supposedly as a representation of gods message or testament to their own historical observations.
Every single christian religion I know of is is based on the cherrypicking of some combination of biblical teachings. To some degree they have to be because of different translations, interpretations and their contradictions.
Even with the same christian denominations different preachers/churches/families have substantial differences. Even if god is real and infallible, it all boils down to whether you trust interpretations of imperfect men over yourself (and what god may be trying to tell you) - thankyousir, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3exactly, whether or not you try to cherry-pick, you will anyways, because there will always be things you naturally agree or disagree with. One of the most important parts of religion is finding what God means to you rather than what it means to someone else.
- JoeDiggsIt, on 07/21/2008, -9/+5I usually disagree with and dislike Bill Maher, but I think he's made a masterpiece here. I glad we can at least laugh at the Christians together even if our political views are different.
- Tallon29, on 07/21/2008, -3/+9A masterpiece? Really? 2 minute trailer and the documentary is a masterpiece. Just give him the Oscar, already!
- JoeDiggsIt, on 07/21/2008, -3/+3Well, a masterpiece in the respect of, a movie I have wanted to see made for a really, really long time, that also looks like it will be done very well. So more of a personal masterpiece, I guess.
- fuzzybeard, on 07/21/2008, -3/+1I think Maher's trying to point out that -metaphorically- the one who yells, "The emperor isn't wearing any clothes!" is also running around nekkid.
- LeeSoong, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Lets not forget the Bulldog of Scientific Method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WCpUvjLE4
Richard Dawkins.
- ferrell, on 07/21/2008, -5/+51That's nice. I was born alright the first time.
- danman890, on 07/21/2008, -10/+1HAHAHA Christian bashing, get it?
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/21/2008, -10/+1Bad documentary, hillarious comedy!
- dildoolielly, on 07/21/2008, -22/+11---------I'm a Born-Again Christian--------
No disrespect, from your post you sound like an intelligent person, but claiming to be a "Christian" is claiming to be proud of the fact that you believe something without ANY evidence whatsoever.
In any other form, thats called stupidity
Please don't take that as and insult, rather an indication.- tim3094, on 07/21/2008, -6/+1Faith in Christianity isn't blind faith. There is evidence, such as the Bible.
I know that practically nobody is a big fan of the Bible, but have you actually read it? People say there are so many contradictions in the Bible and so it can't be true, but actually the Bible is amazingly consistent, especially with predictions made in the old testament (most famously in Isiah, but they are literally everywhere) being perfectly fulfilled by Jesus (who also appears in historical documents made by none christian historians close to the events, such as Josephus and Tacitus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus# ...
Also it is very interesting to see how the culture and history of the Israelites in their early days as they went from Egypt is a reflection of the plan of redemption that God has laid out now. (e.g. perfect lamb sacrificed to 'pay' for sins of Israel, blood put on doors to save Israelites from the angle of death in Egypt, High Priest of Israel is a symbol of Jesus' role now, and so on and so forth) Now whether or not you believe that those events actually happened (they sound very fanciful, like fairy tales), the stories still exist, and they obviously represent Jesus coming to save us from the judgment we deserve.
So basically, I would say that the Bible is the biggest evidence for a Christian God because I believe that God has 'guided' the writers of the bible so that we have what God wanted us to have now, and the Bible is therefore sufficient evidence and help for us to become Christians without to much evidence so that is blindingly obvious and people become Christians out of fear of burning in hell. - PokerGigolo, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, tim, but your argument makes no sense whatsoever. The biggest piece of evidence for the existence of a Christian God is a book written by man? So, based on that logic, the biggest piece of evidence of the existence of extra-terrestrials are the countless books written on the subject, right? I mean, if some guy wrote it down, that's proof-positive, isn't it?
And if this reply to a comment appears to be a reply to the wrong comment, may I just say that Digg's comment system is a complete pile of *****. What arbitrary rules does it use to decide which comments I can reply to and which ones I can't? - dildoolielly, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1------------being perfectly fulfilled by Jesus (who also appears in historical documents made by none christian historians close to the events, such as Josephus and Tacitus,-----------
Christians love to bring up the names of Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and others as testimonies to Jesus’ life, however, they couldn't have been eye-witnesses to him simply because they didn't live in his calculated supposed lifetime.
How about historians who ~did~ live in that time? “Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).
If, indeed, such a well-known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?
Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mentions him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.
It’s quite easy to figure out what all this means.
- tim3094, on 07/21/2008, -6/+1Faith in Christianity isn't blind faith. There is evidence, such as the Bible.
- drwatson, on 07/21/2008, -5/+21I think you need to be born again one more time.
- benjhaisch, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2agreed.
- algaeturd, on 07/21/2008, -7/+1Did you miss the part where he's denigrating your personal beliefs and making fun of your 'born-again' ideals?
OK, I was just a little confused there. I dugg your comment up for the simple fact that you just stabbed yourself in the back. - JB449, on 07/21/2008, -5/+18We are laughing at you not with you.
- lolbrandon, on 07/21/2008, -11/+11agnostics are people who are too big of a pussy to commit to atheism for fear of rejection
its just the way it is- DanMiller, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5I don't think that's fair. As an agnostic I see no proof that there is a god, however, there is no proof that there isn't either. Yes, the current majority of faiths have beliefs that can be disproved in some ways with science however you have no proof that there is truly no higher being or force. This lack of proof in either way is a reason to reserve ones judgement. I don't say I'm an agnostic because I want to avoid rejection I do it because if I reject the idea that a god could exist I am blindly following the same kind of leap of faith that so many take when entering organized religion.
- JustinPM, on 07/21/2008, -0/+13Agnosticism is the best way to have people leave you alone though. Do you believe there is a god? Ahdunno. Do you believe there isn't a god? Ahdunno.
I'm more an atheist myself though. - farsi, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1maybe agnostics think that the dogma of religion is just as bad as the dogma of atheism. maybe dogma is what is bad.
some people just don't have to be as arrogant as most of the world in assuming that they are completely right. admit you don't know and you can never know.
with that, i know there can't be any one man that created the universe and all that's within it. how would you explain all the other universes and what's within them? - javin666, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Word
- MetalliTooL, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3...I'm confused.
- booshack, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3I may be born again, but I wasn't born again yesterday.
- davidaod, on 07/21/2008, -2/+6What the ***** is a "Born-Again Christian"? Damn, you people are crazy *****.
- Backstab, on 07/21/2008, -6/+65Expelled was a mockumentary about how intelligence design is dumb, right?
- aballrap, on 07/21/2008, -31/+3i say half of them are smoking weed
- fuzzybeard, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2I say "Pass the doobie on the left hand side."
- TheUnlearn, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0kouchie
- DforSpiD, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Dutchie...
- HtomSirveaux, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1So what if they are? I'd say half the people in "Expelled" frequently drink and drive under the influence.
- fuzzybeard, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2I say "Pass the doobie on the left hand side."
- Shaman760, on 07/21/2008, -34/+169My 8 year old and I just set a date to go see it when it comes out.
- username7410, on 07/21/2008, -6/+139I'm sure your 8 year can't wait to see a documentary on religion!
- sockpuppets, on 07/21/2008, -6/+262I hope you're not a Catholic priest.
- deff, on 07/21/2008, -29/+17Forcing your child to not believe is just as bad as forcing them TO believe.
- forceeffect, on 07/21/2008, -7/+26By that logic, you think forcing your child to believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system is just as bad as forcing them not to believe it? Dumb.
- ninzoris, on 07/21/2008, -4/+30It does not take any force to not believe. It's the default state.
- DooM, on 07/21/2008, -3/+23Exposing them to rational thought is not bad.
- belebih, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3If it were a film in which only one side of the story is shown, then I'd agree. But, as you can see in the trailer, folks from all ways of life and all sorts of different beliefs are interviewed. Just because the interviewer is not soft on them and challenges their beliefs doesn't mean the kid is being forced to not believe.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/21/2008, -5/+11Lol force.
Religious education is child abuse. It's the number one cause of idiocy in America. - chispito, on 07/21/2008, -7/+0Well you can't really force belief or disbelief, or else there would be no martyrs.
- DanMiller, on 07/21/2008, -4/+2@Achalemoipas
Be fair. Yes, there are some wackjobs out there and some people take religion to far. However, teaching your children kindness, love, compassion, and good works is not a bad thing. Even if that story may not be completely true the many world faiths generally carry a positive message which can be very good for young peoples character. I grew up in the Luthren church. I no longer attend and have since chosen to be Agnostic. In all of this I do not have ill will towards my upbringing and most certaintly haven't become more of an idiot. - AchaIemoipas, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6"However, teaching your children kindness, love, compassion, and good works is not a bad thing."
Yes, and these things have nothing to do with religion or belief in God.
The first thing children are taught is what will send them to hell. Let's not pretend there's anything valid about any religion. It's just misinformation aimed at making feeble minds comply. - Hemloch, on 07/21/2008, -3/+1Hey guys, I can diffuse his argument simply by claiming that God doesn't exist despite the fact that nobody could possibly know whether or not that's true! You see, I like to believe that I am correct in all facets of life instead of admitting to the possibility that perhaps there are some things that I am unsure of.
I love how all you ***** love to act all superciliously when it comes to religion. You dismiss any religious person as stupid on the spot which only fuels the public perception of the arrogant atheist and proves you are just as dense as the most hardline fundamentalist.
***** you all, you're no more intelligent than a block of cheese. - DooM, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1@Hemloch - sucks when you're judged on the spot for just that one thing doesn't it..? I don't see much of that happening, though - what I see is people judging others on the stupid things they SAY not believe.
At the same time, if you really feel 'persecuted' for being a Christian, you should try being an Atheist - we are the least trusted minority. w00t for us.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422& ... - Hemloch, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Haha, I wish that was even half true.
I'm not a Christian. I don't feel persecuted. I think all belief systems pertaining to a higher power are a waste of time and mind.
- DjOverEZ, on 07/21/2008, -10/+2If something comes up that night, I'll be glad to take her/him.
- carpespasm, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6(insert pedo bear ascii art)
- skyroket, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1(insert that "Have a seat over there" guy URL)
- carpespasm, on 07/21/2008, -1/+15unless it's just something she's personally interested in I'd lay off something as complex for the moment. There will be plenty of time to explain why religion is kooky without using the rapid-fire wit of a Maher show in a theatre where you can't answer questions for her as they come.
- sockpuppets, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5She?
- haikuFU, on 07/21/2008, -4/+8Just like religious nuts indoctrinate their children into religion, I'm going to make damn sure I instill secular views and values into my kids. The sooner they can see how stupid religion is, the safer they will be.
- H0tKarl, on 07/21/2008, -2/+69Your 8 year old what?
Girlfriend?
Golden retriever?
Single malt scotch?- cruzlee, on 07/21/2008, -0/+40I take my 8 year old Scotch to every movie I see.
- andywu92, on 07/21/2008, -5/+0I'm sure Sharman760 is referring to his/her son/daughter
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2President.
- itsripitsrip, on 07/21/2008, -8/+30everyone on here criticizes religious people for telling their kids what to believe, and here is someone taking there kid to a movie "explaining" how dumb religion is.
let your kid think for themselves when it comes to this subject.- MisterNipples, on 07/21/2008, -0/+24He is. Giving atheism a fair shake is OK, when kids are subjected to all kinds of religious BS every day. TV, school, friends. It's OK to show kids that they don't have to believe in magic people.
- MJDub, on 07/21/2008, -1/+16Why don't you have a seat over there.
- bales, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Hey, aren't you Chris Hansen?
- Hemloch, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1An astute observation.
- DrGFreeman, on 07/21/2008, -10/+7Pay no attention to these people. I for one am VERY proud of you.
- joeykaufmann, on 07/21/2008, -1/+14and in another 12 years, she'll be ridiculing my kid on digg for his belief in a god...
oh how the circle of life continues - ligyron, on 07/21/2008, -2/+6What's with the pedophile-related replies? Some of you have twisted minds
- goosegoosegoose, on 07/21/2008, -14/+2Way to blast your son with atheist ***** rather than allow him to make up his own mind about religion.
- DrGFreeman, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Fail.
- Anthropoid, on 07/21/2008, -0/+10In case you were unawares, this movie is rated R for language and sexual content according to imdb.com.
EDIT: Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/ - TheBuz, on 07/21/2008, -1/+48 year olds, dude.
- KH47, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7After that you two should go drinking at a strip club.
- thekms, on 07/21/2008, -21/+3lol
- TimeIsTissue, on 07/21/2008, -20/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaIR9dAZRR0
- alchemist27, on 07/21/2008, -2/+3why??
- poopsmcgee, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Check the title. And Tissue is right.
- JoeDiggsIt, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1This random as hell occurence made me finally realize the absence of that bouffant haired 80's singer being posted everywhere on Digg.
- AutoTom, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1its not funny anymore man
- alchemist27, on 07/21/2008, -2/+3why??
- bigbill780, on 07/21/2008, -18/+203Definitely better action sequences than Dark Knight.
Why so... religious?- EllimistX, on 07/21/2008, -3/+11Wanna see a magic trick?
- persept, on 07/21/2008, -3/+14no
- Yogie, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5real clever...
- JustinPM, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3That part was awesome.
- tallassrob, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Ta-da!
- brainboy77, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Technically, the quote is, "“A magic trick? Well, let me show you, i’ll make this pencil DISAPPEAR!”
- KingGorilla, on 07/21/2008, -2/+10I enjoyed this trailer. I hope they make a sequel to it.
- silentb0b, on 07/21/2008, -7/+6lol why so religious.
good one sir. - identifiedlogo, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1bigbilll ........permission to use that line....
- marcstyles, on 07/21/2008, -2/+0indeed!
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3Wanna know how I got these scars? So I'm in the basement with a priest...
- nycmac247, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1the knife story is just like the "god" story - different depending on the person?
- EllimistX, on 07/21/2008, -3/+11Wanna see a magic trick?
- purelithium, on 07/21/2008, -31/+513The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.- xwfilm, on 07/21/2008, -9/+129That...was awesome.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/21/2008, -1/+31Carl Sagan on weed:
"I can remember the night that I suddenly realized what it was like to be crazy, or nights when my feelings and perceptions were of a religious nature. I had a very accurate sense that these feelings and perceptions, written down casually, would not stand the usual critical scrutiny that is my stock in trade as a scientist. If I find in the morning a message from myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to disbelieve; but when I’m high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take such remarks seriously. I say ‘Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!’ I try to show that my mind is working clearly; I recall the name of a high school acquaintance I have not thought of in thirty years; I describe the color, typography, and format of a book in another room and these memories do pass critical scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs." - endlessoul, on 07/21/2008, -0/+14Carl Sagan's work usually is.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/21/2008, -1/+31Carl Sagan on weed:
- Jumpeplowski, on 07/21/2008, -59/+6tl:dr
- tidu, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2ts;dnua;
- SquigglyP, on 07/21/2008, -1/+11your loss.
- djlethal, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1can someone explain?
- SquigglyP, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3it means "Too long; Didn't read"
The people who use it demonstrate a lack of common sense. Using it is like going out of your way specifically to take a poll, or to vote on something, only to mark yourself down as "undecided" when you get there. The fact that someone would actively participate in a thread solely so they can proclaim their ignorance and laziness is mind boggling. It is possibly one of the most pure, unfiltered examples of stupid I have ever come across on the internet.
If you have any respect for yourself, do not use it.
- CrudeDarkness, on 07/21/2008, -21/+12what if there was really an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire?
- Tallon29, on 07/21/2008, -2/+64I suppose there would be no harm in entertaining that possibility, until lawmakers and world leaders begin to receive instructions from invisible, incorporeal, floating dragons on how our children should be educated and how our nation should be governed. I would be especially contentious when the instructions of these creatures--of which we have no proof that they even exist--began to sway millions to begin to favor laws which are not in humanity's best interests, or which hinder scientific progress.
- Yage2006, on 07/21/2008, -2/+16Nice retort :)
- Sraza, on 07/21/2008, -1/+10You are saying that one exists and asking what we should do about? Nothing. If there is something that fits everything in the the premise it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist until you prove it exists. It has no bearing on reality.
- CrazyEddie041, on 07/21/2008, -11/+1@Sraza: by this logic, we should not believe in gravity. We cannot "see" gravity, or subject it to any tests to prove its existence: we have only seen various phenomena that have similar characteristics and attribute their existence to the presumed existence of this essence called "gravity."
I don't mean this to be a pro-religion argument; I just believe that your logic could use a little more critical thought. - Jennefah, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7@ CrazyEddie041
Isaac Newton must be spinning in his grave. Well, he could if gravity wasn't stopping him from floating away. - feoren, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5We have no tests to prove gravity's existence? Are you insane?
- JoeDiggsIt, on 07/21/2008, -1/+31Thank you very much for that.
- carbog, on 07/21/2008, -25/+5Why do people keep trying to argue that religion is illogical. Religious belief is not something that can be argued away.
I asked a religious friend of mine "how can you be convinced of something that you have absolutely no proof of?", he said "because I have faith." People aren't religious because its a logical thing to believe in.- Yage2006, on 07/21/2008, -1/+21Because we are trying to grab those on the fence or near to the fence and keep them on the side of logic.
Doing nothing is passive support which is almost as bad. - BetterOffEd, on 07/21/2008, -3/+15You just answered your own argument. Religious "faith" is something that should not be tolerated. Actions based purely on dogma or on unsupported claims are just asinine.
"Faith" in people is quite a different concept. If you say to say to someone: "I have faith in you." You're saying that you're as sure as you can be that you can count on that person. But that kind of faith is usually earned. Friends or family members of yours have to build a track record to attain this trust or faith.
"Faith" in organized religion is just a societal cancer. - Elliuotatar, on 07/21/2008, -1/+13I beg to differ. I was raised a christian, and I am now an agnostic. Religion most certainly can be argued away.
That's not to say it's not harder for some people than for others. - Marley88, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6Faith is an interesting one, for example the argument that god is an atheist, faith is putting belief into something you do not know to be true, yet god, being omniscient, knows all and therefore couldn't hold faith. I'm sure there is some empty retort to this but its just one of many contradictions and examples of bad logic involved in the joke that is religion.
- Yage2006, on 07/21/2008, -1/+21Because we are trying to grab those on the fence or near to the fence and keep them on the side of logic.
- muleskinner, on 07/21/2008, -2/+11Thanks for that, that was an interesting read.
- Esstee, on 07/21/2008, -25/+3I have heard such arguments in the past(there nice), but there a far stretch from an accurate comparison to God and the universe.
The biggest issue in this example is that there is no evidence of the Dragon or it's existence to begin with beyond one(or several) persons claims. However... when it comes to God and our existence we have countless calculable criteria that tie in with the existence of our kind as well as our universe. So the notion that a fire breathing dragon is somehow comparable to existence of a higher power is not a fitting argument.
What I personally find delusional is why people are so quick to discount the possibilities of alternate lifeforms throughout the entire vast universe(and beyond) based solely on the fact that we cannot see or measure them. A human trait that has scorched our intellect time and time again throughout history.- whatwhatwhoa, on 07/21/2008, -5/+6Troll.
- Yage2006, on 07/21/2008, -2/+12You just skipped through that didn't you.
You did not read the whole thing else you would no have tried to make those points that are already covered.
IE all those myths of dragons in china and so on. - Esstee, on 07/21/2008, -9/+2Not at all... and the point made was not covered in the original text.
The irony to the example is in the final portion of my comment, there is no denying our ignorance towards matters of the unknown since we have trumped ourselves time and time again throughout the course of history. Anyone thinking that we have somehow changed this profile as a species is just as delusional as those attacking people with faith.
In short, we are a sad sad primitive people with little(if any) hope of surviving the next century due to our complete lack of capacity to acknowledge reality. - Esstee, on 07/21/2008, -7/+1Right, however, my initial comment was that the post was not entirely fitting as an example to discount the existence of God or those exercising faith in something which is not measurable.
Granted there are crazy religious claimants a'plenty and for the most part, serve as an embarrassment to the concept of a higher power. However, the example was not aimed squarely at religious fanatics either, but from what I have read, served as a blanket statement towards a belief towards that which cannot be proven as a whole and so on and so forth.... - Phyraxus, on 07/21/2008, -0/+9Esstee, you aren't saying anything of value and/or you aren't making sense.
Carl Sagan promoted a healthy skepticism on things that cannot be measured or calculated.
You say we can't rule out the possibility, neither was Sagan, but that in and of itself shouldn't promote the belief in such things.
.
The very fact of the matter is that we ARE ignorant. When new evidence comes to light, we will be better able to make a judgment on the invisible dragon. That isn't to say, however, that people who proposed the idea of the invisible dragon 2000 years ago were better off than we are now in discerning its veracity. The more knowledgeable we have become, the more ignorant we know we are.
You seem to be completely agreeing with the lesson of the story, but you disagree that it also applies to a deity, which, quite frankly, is incorrect. - Elliuotatar, on 07/21/2008, -0/+10You can't claim there's countless criteria which provide proof of god's existence without actually listing any of them and expect anyone to take your argument seriously.
You sound like this guy who claims that the perfect shape of the banana is proof of god's existence:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo
- Namakemono, on 07/21/2008, -2/+45Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" should be required reading for all high school freshmen.
- Fogdelune, on 07/21/2008, -1/+11Should be required for everybody. Great book, as are all the ones of his that I've read.
- sarixe, on 07/21/2008, -7/+5***** required reading. you know what happens when books become required reading? the vast majority loses interest. it becomes boring. even if it's the most interesting book in the world, putting it on a required reading list is surely its demise.
- ConfuciusOne, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1I don't know why sarixe is being dugg down. What he speaks is truth, at least on my account. I used to love to read as a kid and then as required readings were forced down my throat, I slowly lost interest. I've been waiting to get back into it now because I know I'm missing out on a lot, though.
- Aieces, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0Yea I dont know why sarixe is getting dugg down either. I ***** hate required reading lists! Nothing just sucks the interest out of something like someone else telling you you have to do it. The fact that its not apart of common knowledge is what makes it special.
- cosmicastaway, on 07/21/2008, -2/+22Yes, thanks for that. Brought a smile to my face; Carl Sagan is my favorite author of all time.
- CarISagan, on 07/21/2008, -13/+57Oh yes, I remember when I wrote this, good times!
- Kumaku, on 07/21/2008, -12/+2A lot of people must not smoke at the levels you do, buddy.
- getrealnow, on 07/21/2008, -1/+12Hint:name
- kr3mliyn, on 07/21/2008, -0/+22You better not digg ***** articles buddy.
That's one hell of a name, and it carries weight! Weight!!!
- saulmora, on 07/21/2008, -0/+12Whoa, I could almost hear Carl reciting that passage himself...happy travels, Carl.
- pieceofred, on 07/21/2008, -13/+5yeah...everyone says 911 was done by al-queda...but when you ask for proof people just nod their heads and call you a loony tune. Weird how it works both ways, pal...
- sarixe, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4the proof is in the pudding. curious how i haven't had any pudding since 9/11...
- Drazzim12, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5*blocks user*
- MisterNipples, on 07/21/2008, -1/+32Do you really want to risk going to invisible dragon hell. Why not just worship it "just in case"?
- bobbarkerbilly, on 07/21/2008, -0/+10Because you're still going to invisible dragon hell. Invisible dragon requires that you truly believe in him, not only "just in case".
- BetterOffEd, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2This argument is completely *****' moronic. You know, if there is indeed a "God," it would be assumed that he/she/it would be omniscient (all-knowing). (I think that's a premise that we all can agree on, right?)
If that is the case, then he/she/it will undoubtedly *know* if you're participating in dogma or just believing in he/she/it "just in case." Don't you think that that will be frowned upon by he/she/it? Isn't it required that you be *genuine*? - feoren, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1An omniscient god would know, before he created humanity, everyone who will ever live and whether or not they're going to genuinely believe in him, and therefore whether he is going to send them to hell or not. Therefore the act of creating humanity would be the act of knowingly and purposefully condemning billions of people who have no say in the matter to eternal torture for, I assume, ***** and giggles.
- kaelyiesta, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1The 'standard' answer to that argument(a play on pascals wager) is the infinite possibilities answer. You could suppose an infinite such dilemmas some of which contradict the requirements of others. Some will torture you indefinitely for not believing in them without evidence, others will torture you if you believe in anything without evidence. See the problem? I could create a new god out of thin air and give it properties that outweigh any other in suffering if you don't do what this god insists.
Just because it's possible, doesn't mean you should prepare for it. An infinite number of things are possible, and so it would be impossible to prepare for all those things. I choose the probabilist route(see epistemology and skepticism) of accepting whats most likely given the current evidence at hand, knowing full well most of what I 'believe' is actually still just uncertain assumptions of varying degree.
Or were you being facetious?
- culbeda, on 07/21/2008, -17/+12The problems with this entire argument is that religion has acted as a binding societal force for years and that it serves as a defense mechanism against radical influences that threaten the stability of the community. In some respects, we wouldn't be here today without Faith. The problem is not faith, it's the exploitation of faith.
It is also no coincidence that religions popped up in damn near every corner of the world. It was an easy way to consolidate power, appease the people while doing relatively little and it gives the masses a nice, warm security blanket.
Unfortunately, many or most of these people would have a difficult time functioning without this security blanket, especially now. Dealing with adversity and death without the ray of hope that their respective religions provide them is more difficult than they can bare. When one has slept their entire lives thinking that a spiritual being is looking after then, it's hard to suddenly imagine they're not without being frightened.
I don't think that we can (or should) try to eradicate faith. For it does some positive things, such as define a common moral code ((do unto one another..."). What we should do is to continue to work diligently towards teaching tolerance and acceptance and that science doesn't have to be at odds with faith. Done properly, this should help diminish the power of the more harmful elements in several organized religions.
Then again, this is Digg, so screw the subtlety and go bitchslap anyone who doesn't believe in the way you do. Just keep in mind, they have LOTS of guns.- zeeohsix, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8now try and replace "faith" and "religion" with "invisible dragons" or "flying spaghetti monster".
science, that "radical influence that threaten the stability of the community" has done a pretty good job of getting us where we are today too.
how do you NOT exploit faith? - adasha, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7When you say 'radical influences that threaten the stability of the community' you mean things like religious extremism, right?
- bmgoau, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5Q. The problems with this entire argument is that religion has acted as a binding societal force for years and that it serves as a defense mechanism against radical influences that threaten the stability of the community.
A. Except for its inherint nature to segregate humanity into yet more groups. Except for its inherint nature to spring forth fundamentalists willing to kill so that you might believe what they do. And yes, even faith without exploitation is a problem as it neccesiates action without cause and reality without reason, that is a very bad thing.
Q. It is also no coincidence that religions popped up in damn near every corner of the world. It was an easy way to consolidate power, appease the people while doing relatively little and it gives the masses a nice, warm security blanket.
A. Thankyou, you already proved my point. Religion, is yet another way for people to weild control over others. Its not safety, its persecution, exploitation and dangerous. Cough...holocaust...cough...crusades...cough... i could go on.
Q. Unfortunately, many or most of these people would have a difficult time functioning without this security blanket, especially now. Dealing with adversity and death without the ray of hope that their respective religions provide them is more difficult than they can bare. When one has slept their entire lives thinking that a spiritual being is looking after then, it's hard to suddenly imagine they're not without being frightened.
A. People need to take responsibility for their actions. If they cant function without religion like the rest of us then they are dearly missing an important part of themselves. They clearly lack any sense of self responsibility. They would rather afford responsibility to a high power. That is pure ignorance.
Q. I don't think that we can (or should) try to eradicate faith. For it does some positive things, such as define a common moral code ((do unto one another..."). What we should do is to continue to work diligently towards teaching tolerance and acceptance and that science doesn't have to be at odds with faith. Done properly, this should help diminish the power of the more harmful elements in several organized religions.
A. That moral code isnt religious. Its built into our genes, we are a communal and social animal and if you've ever watched any animal documentary you'll see we're not the only animal on earth that actively seaks to help one another. We dont need religion to tell us we should be nice to each other, we should realise that ourselves. Anyways "No philosopher has ever killed a priest, but priests have killed numerous philosophers"
Q. Then again, this is Digg, so screw the subtlety and go bitchslap anyone who doesn't believe in the way you do. Just keep in mind, they have LOTS of guns.
A. So if you cant back up your religious beliefes you threaten to kill me. How very chrisitan of you... - GUTTS, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Only problem with your argument is that you've given no validity to the basic fundementals of religion. Which is faith and the belief in a higher power. You've already tried, judged and executed. You're so called security blanket isn't what a religious person would call their beliefs.
You say let them have their beliefs and disguise yourself under a cloak of fairness. When in reality you are really just being patronizing and condescending. I don't believe religion and a moral code are synonymous. Everyone knows inherantly what's right and what's wrong.
Now honestly, I can say I believe in God. Do I know what the whole picture is and what the meaning of life is, no. I don't. But I believe and that's all that really matters. - CrazyEddie041, on 07/21/2008, -3/+1Q: "Except for its inherint nature to segregate humanity into yet more groups. Except for its inherint nature to spring forth fundamentalists willing to kill so that you might believe what they do. And yes, even faith without exploitation is a problem as it neccesiates action without cause and reality without reason, that is a very bad thing."
A: This is exactly culbeda's point: you're giving examples of religion being exploited for the sake of power. Science can be used the same way. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We had plenty of other ways to end the war, several of which didn't even require any kind of invasion of the Japanese invasion of the main land. Unfortunately, we felt like playing with our new toys, and over 100,000 people died of it, and millions of others were affected. Religious extremism merely manifested itself in our national psychology through another facet: the problem is not religion, but humanity. Trying to trade science for religion is just treating the symptoms of a deeper disease.
Q: "People need to take responsibility for their actions. If they cant function without religion like the rest of us then they are dearly missing an important part of themselves. They clearly lack any sense of self responsibility. They would rather afford responsibility to a high power. That is pure ignorance."
I disagree. The most self-deprecating people I know are religious: when they do something wrong, they know it, and they try to correct it and better themselves. The non-religious people simply blame their flaws on genetics, psychology, or the fact that what they're doing is "natural" and has no apparent consequence.
Q: "That moral code isnt religious."
A: Yes it is. Wikipedia "Ethic of Reciprocity."
Q: "Its built into our genes, we are a communal and social animal and if you've ever watched any animal documentary you'll see we're not the only animal on earth that actively seaks to help one another."
We're also not the only animal that actively seeks to kill one another. Many bird species lay eggs in pairs because it is natural for the stronger hatchling to kill the weaker one. Herd animals will leave a sick or injured member behind so that predators will focus on it. Most animals bear large broods simply because they know that most of the young will die before reaching adulthood; it is only the more advanced animals that have a small number of children and take special care of them. The animal world is not the place to find examples on compassion.
Q: ""No philosopher has ever killed a priest, but priests have killed numerous philosophers""
Meaningless idioms aside, that depends heavily on who receives the title of "philosopher" and who receives the title of "priest."
tl;dr version: you will find common qualities between a "good" religious person and a "good" atheist, as well as between a "bad" member of both parties. Trying to say that the world will be improved by making religious people give up their faith is like trying to cure brain cancer by removing everyone's brains: it doesn't matter what's killing them, since either option winds up with the person missing a brain. You need to cure the brain cancer first.
- zeeohsix, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8now try and replace "faith" and "religion" with "invisible dragons" or "flying spaghetti monster".
- Exodin, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3Brilliant. Tagging for later.
- thisonetakentoo, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Brilliant. It's refreshing to see a such an open minded writing that is relatively void of the biases and insecurities we so commonly see today in so many written thoughts. Since this all seems to be written/posted in the effort and spirit of unbiased and respectable reasoning, I can't help but to point out two things (both concerning the final paragraph):
1. It probably seems like "[supernatural evidence is never displayed] when a skeptic is looking" because if such things were witnessed--even by skeptics--there's a good chance that they'd no longer be skeptics (e.g. Saul/Paul; King Nebuchadnezzar; "doubting Thomas"; etc.). This certainly has also been the case with a lot of my own friends.
2. tossing in the bit about "An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination, it seems clear that... [etc.]" probably renders this as an unfair/inaccurate analogy in that it would cause this analogy to be inapplicable to the cases in which clear alternative explanations are not available (e.g. numerous blind people receiving sight and numerous people crippled from birth standing and walking and jumping--all from the touch or spoken word of one man; a man ascending into heaven before your very eyes (no, not on a helicopter); walking around in a furnace of fire (yes, a real one) without being harmed in any way; etc.). It's also not hard to find such testimonies in the present times (remember, whether you consider them to be true or not is not so relevant in the present point being made).
Christian or not, I encourage all to have an open mind with a mutual respect for the desires and flaws of humanity (I especially address those who seem to be blinded by their passionate prejudice against those with different beliefs--I must say, this seems to be very common here in the digg community).
- xwfilm, on 07/21/2008, -9/+129That...was awesome.
- Tyrghast,
