Bill Maher - Atheism is Not a Religion

[hadespussercats]

All the atheist spokespeople will have flaws. For example, many took issue with Hitchens because of his support for the war in Iraq. Progressives seem to tear down their people more than conservatives. When the thumpers learned of Shrub's alcoholism and cocaine use, they accepted it as a character flaw to be forgiven. We should do the same for our side, IMO.

Yeah, but they have to forgive.


(I kid. They rarely do.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't know-- I think he's a crusader with the zeal of a convert. That zeal can be off-putting.

Well-put.

Watching Religulous, I felt embarrassed for him. In the parts where he's trolling theists, he comes across as puerile ... and in the behind-the-scenes stuff (like driving from place to place) he's talking like a fourteen-year-old boy who's just discovered masturbation and has to share this startling news with someone, anyone.

I made it through twenty-five or so minutes before I had to flip the channel.

I watched it twice, and enjoyed it both times.

Each to his own. His style is enervating, to me. YMMV.

[hadespussercats]

I don't know-- I think he's a crusader with the zeal of a convert. That zeal can be off-putting.

Well-put.

Watching Religulous, I felt embarrassed for him. In the parts where he's trolling theists, he comes across as puerile ... and in the behind-the-scenes stuff (like driving from place to place) he's talking like a fourteen-year-old boy who's just discovered masturbation and has to share this startling news with someone, anyone.

I made it through twenty-five or so minutes before I had to flip the channel.

I watched it twice, and enjoyed it both times.

Each to his own. His style is enervating, to me. YMMV.

I don't always enjoy Bill Maher, but when I do...

I'm drunk on Dos Equis?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

His bit in the theme park was great. Jesus had obviously been coached, but not very well. The vapid expressions in the audience during the crucifixion scene were perfectly familiar.

[Drewish]

All the atheist spokespeople will have flaws. For example, many took issue with Hitchens because of his support for the war in Iraq. Progressives seem to tear down their people more than conservatives. When the thumpers learned of Shrub's alcoholism and cocaine use, they accepted it as a character flaw to be forgiven. We should do the same for our side, IMO.

That's a horrible idea. First of all Hitchens never reversed his opinion on Iraq, so you'd then be forgiving something that he was not seeking forgiveness for. Also there are plenty of examples of people "on the other side" who were not forgiven for their transgressions, even when they did ask for forgiveness. What's even worse is the notion of "our side" in relation to politics. STOP TRYING TO MARRY ATHEISM WITH POLITICS! It's not an "us and them" type of situation. When you attempt to say that the real atheist have a particular range of political views (As Tero did earlier) then you are making atheism more than just the rejection of theism, and attempting to turn it into a unified philosophy with it's meta-physics, ethics, so on and so forth. That's what critics mean when they say that atheism is becoming a religion. Now stop it.

[Tero]

Andrew, over here religion IS politics. The main goal of fundies is to get rid of evolution abortion and taxes. The last time Republicans cared about you, you were a fetus.

My tolerance to religion correlates to their politics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Andrew, over here religion IS politics. The main goal of fundies is to get rid of evolution abortion and taxes. The last time Republicans cared about you, you were a fetus.

My tolerance to religion correlates to their politics.

Amen to that. The political arena is secondary to the religious arena in their minds and they have no compunction about mixing the two, no matter how inappropriate that may be. They are God's Children first and citizens second.

[Drewish]

Andrew, over here religion IS politics. The main goal of fundies is to get rid of evolution abortion and taxes. The last time Republicans cared about you, you were a fetus.

My tolerance to religion correlates to their politics.

Over here? I live in the US. I have no problem with particular philosophical perspectives or religions involving a political view (it would be odd if they didn't). My issue is with the notion that Atheism has a default political stance, or rather that one form of ethics is innate to Atheism. I see Marxism and Objectivism as religions for example. I have no issue with people who are atheists and identify with a particular political party, or explicitly atheistic groups with strong political affiliations. My issue is with the term 'atheist' itself being used as a political or philosophical label. Atheism is not the opposite of any one particular religion, but of theism. I see no reason to why there can't be or shouldn't be atheistic religions, but claiming that one particular view is innate to atheism while also saying that atheism is not a religion is about as arrogant and hypocritical as when Christians claim that Christianity isn't really a religion, it's a personal relationship with Jesus.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I see Marxism and Objectivism as religions for example."

You have no problem with that being plain and simple bullshit then?

[Tero]

OK, I dont have a Ratz map.

All the theists I deal with are center or left. Some AFS exchange student host families I know are fundies. I only discuss their student with them, never politics or religion.

[amused]

All the atheist spokespeople will have flaws. For example, many took issue with Hitchens because of his support for the war in Iraq. Progressives seem to tear down their people more than conservatives. When the thumpers learned of Shrub's alcoholism and cocaine use, they accepted it as a character flaw to be forgiven. We should do the same for our side, IMO.

That's a horrible idea. First of all Hitchens never reversed his opinion on Iraq, so you'd then be forgiving something that he was not seeking forgiveness for. Also there are plenty of examples of people "on the other side" who were not forgiven for their transgressions, even when they did ask for forgiveness. What's even worse is the notion of "our side" in relation to politics. STOP TRYING TO MARRY ATHEISM WITH POLITICS! It's not an "us and them" type of situation. When you attempt to say that the real atheist have a particular range of political views (As Tero did earlier) then you are making atheism more than just the rejection of theism, and attempting to turn it into a unified philosophy with it's meta-physics, ethics, so on and so forth. That's what critics mean when they say that atheism is becoming a religion. Now stop it.

I identify as a Progressive, so when I speak of 'our side' I mean the side that I am on. I'll speak from that perspective any way and any time I please.

As far as forgiving, I mean that in terms of overlooking a persons flaws because they are still more or less in agreement with me on the bigger issues. I'll do that as well any time I please.

I recognize that there are atheists of all political stripes and when I speak from my own perspective I am not trying to rope others into it, just using shortcuts in the language.

[hadespussercats]

Andrew, over here religion IS politics. The main goal of fundies is to get rid of evolution abortion and taxes. The last time Republicans cared about you, you were a fetus.

My tolerance to religion correlates to their politics.

Over here? I live in the US. I have no problem with particular philosophical perspectives or religions involving a political view (it would be odd if they didn't). My issue is with the notion that Atheism has a default political stance, or rather that one form of ethics is innate to Atheism. I see Marxism and Objectivism as religions for example. I have no issue with people who are atheists and identify with a particular political party, or explicitly atheistic groups with strong political affiliations. My issue is with the term 'atheist' itself being used as a political or philosophical label. Atheism is not the opposite of any one particular religion, but of theism. I see no reason to why there can't be or shouldn't be atheistic religions, but claiming that one particular view is innate to atheism while also saying that atheism is not a religion is about as arrogant and hypocritical as when Christians claim that Christianity isn't really a religion, it's a personal relationship with Jesus.

I guess you're the converse of liberal Christians who don't identify with the religious right.

[Audley Strange]

Religion, as far as I can tell, is not a belief in a supernatural deity, but a human culture which creates and shares beliefs and ideals which are based on faith and assertion often in direct contrast to evidence and who view those who do not subscribe to the beliefs as unclean, sinners, viruses, asleep, capitalist running dogs, Bloodthirsty communists, witches etc etc. This can be evinced in sports and in politics, so I don't know why some assume there has to be a supernatural aspect to it.

If such a thing exists as atheism, and I remain unconvinced about that, then I can't see how it would not take on aspects of a religion since even the suffix "ism" suggests a set of beliefs, problem is that's absent when one is an atheist. If there is a movement identifying itself as "atheism" I'd like to know what the central tenets are at least. On the contrary, I think the term is being appropriated by specific socio/political groups who have a habit of jumping on any bandwagon and taking the reins by fair means or foul and steering it towards their own political faiths.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religion, as far as I can tell, is not a belief in a supernatural deity, but a human culture which creates and shares beliefs and ideals which are based on faith and assertion often in direct contrast to evidence and who view those who do not subscribe to the beliefs as unclean, sinners, viruses, asleep, capitalist running dogs, Bloodthirsty communists, witches etc etc. This can be evinced in sports and in politics, so I don't know why some assume there has to be a supernatural aspect to it.

I wish there was enough room in my sig for there.

If such a thing exists as atheism, and I remain unconvinced about that, then I can't see how it would not take on aspects of a religion since even the suffix "ism" suggests a set of beliefs, problem is that's absent when one is an atheist. If there is a movement identifying itself as "atheism" I'd like to know what the central tenets are at least. On the contrary, I think the term is being appropriated by specific socio/political groups who have a habit of jumping on any bandwagon and taking the reins by fair means or foul and steering it towards their own political faiths.

The thing is, atheism is a person stance, not an organized position. Attempts to make it an position have routinely failed because we're so diverse, having most that one thing in common.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Forming a movement of nonconformists seems strangely close to trying to piss up a rope.