Okay well I think this is where our opinions differ. What you call him personally attacking people and being an “asshole,” I just see as him being a quick-witted funny guy – one who used to do standup comedy. It’s just his personality and I doubt he meant to be rude when he said those things to the ex-gay preacher and Muslims. After all, I doubt the movie would have done as well if it had left the comedy out and been 100% serious.
Sorry, I’m just here to cheerlead, not having seen the film in question ( I likely won’t - Maher annoys me in general ). But the above encompasses my views pretty much exactly and more articulately than I’d probably ever be able to manage. It demanded recognition ;).
Maybe it’s because I have always had one or two very religious friends at any given point in my life, but I’ve just never bought into the efficacy of the Theory of Confrontational Assholery.
In Ebert’s review, he mentions that Maher “detours into pagan cults and ancient Egypt.”
Can someone expand on that for me? Please describe what was said about those two subjects.
The structural integrity of our theater screen and/or TV may depend on it… 
I found the part of the story about the similarities between Christ and Horus to be very interesting, especially after having read Joseph Campbell’s “The Power of Myth”. I have always been fascinated by the similarities in those stories.
For those calling him an asshole, I agree. He is. But I think he is funny anyways.
But what I don’t get is why he is expected to have any reverence for a religion he doesn’t believe in. He is a comedian making fun.
If comedians make fun of someone that worships, say, hot dogs, do we say he is disrespectful, or do we laugh? If he doesn’t believe in it at all, then why can’t he make fun of it. I am asking that genuinely.
Also, I have always wondered about those that say, “Oh, I don’t take the creation story literally,” and says it as if anyone who does is silly. What is the difference in levels of silliness from someone that believes in talking snakes, to someone that believes that a man came back from the dead, floated to ‘heaven’, which I assume is somewhere floating above space?.. and is going to ressurect millions of people from dust one day?
I just saw Religulous this afternoon. I loved it. I laughed hard at least 20 times. Everyone else in the theatre was laughing, too. At the end, we all applauded.
Mr. Maher: job well done, sir.
For those bellyaching about the film, and Mr. Maher’s disrespect of religion, please tell me again why crazy, unsupported, unproven ideas deserve respect?
And do you respect the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or do you ridicule and scorn him?
Praise Bob!
Not to speak for anyone else, but just to repeat what I’ve been saying here and in the other thread: I have no problem at all with Maher’s disrespect for religion. I have a spaghetti monster on my car. I have serious problems with his disrespect for people. That’s the distinction.
We live in a society in which it is assumed that belief in the supernatural is the norm and non-believers are looked upon with suspicion. Polls routinely show that atheists are trusted less than any other group, including Muslims. As a result, most atheitsts keep their views to themselves. The ones who do talk about it are the ones who are fed up to the gills with the crap and thus tend to come off as nasty.
Maher is indifferent to the question of whether there actually is a god. He’s not indifferent to the phenomenon of religionism ruling public life.
Why should I show respect to a person who is ridiculous? If a person tries to tell me that I can get rich by selling soap to other people, and I can get richer if I can convince other people to sell soap, and the more people I can convince, the more money I will make (standard Ponzi scheme stuff), and I mock them and call them crazy and stupid, am I wrong that they are crazy and stupid?
Why should a person get a free pass to believe any outlandish thing they want, just because it’s their “religion”?
Some people are deserving of scorn and ridicule, because they cleave to ideas which are ridiculous.
Not according to any dictionary I’ve ever consulted or any encyclopedia of philosophy that I’ve ever seen.
A great many people choose to define atheism in this manner, but that’s not how it has traditionally been defined. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary, for example, specifically says that atheism is “the doctrine or belief that there is no God” and “the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.” Nowhere does it say that atheism is merely an absence of belief, nor have I ever found a dictionary or encyclopedia which specifically defines atheism in that manner.
So he’s regurgitating that bit of nonsense? The supposed parallels between Jesus and Horus are vastly overblown.
I cited Merriam-Webster to you in another thread recently, but I didn’t have it avaliable to check. But I find it’s online, so here you go;
Words change meanings all the time; as pointed out by M-W, atheism no longer is a by-word for wickedness nor necessarily ungodliness. I don’t really see that the traditional use somehow trumps the more modern one.
Edit: Thinking about your own cite, it appears pretty similar to mine. I would define disbelief as a lack of belief, rather than active belief; perhaps that’s the problem here.
They were not kids. The Hebrew word used was naar, and it’s the same word that was used of Isaac when he was 28 years old. This word was rendered inaccurately in the King James Version, and has been translated more precisely in other translations.
RT, your cited does not contradict what I said. Quite the contrary; it supports it!
Your dictionary specifically defines it as the active belief “that there is no deity.” So much for the insistence that atheism only means a mere absence of belief!
And I have repeatedly granted that definitions do change through time. The point is that this supposedly new definition of atheism has not yet been commonly accepted by either dictionary writers or the authors of philosophy encyclopedias. More importantly, it shows that skeptics are vastly overstating the case when they insist that atheism is nothing more than mere absence of belief.
I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen atheists here declare, “Dammit! Atheism just means a lack of belief!” Even if we allow for evolving definitions, the point remains that atheism is exclusively defined in that manner.
Hi, RT. I posted my reply before you posted the amendment above. In fairness, I felt that I should recognize that.
Having said that, I think we should look at how “disbelief” is defined. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary specifically describes it as “the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.” This goes far beyond a mere “lack of belief.”
The following might also be helpful. It’s from Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary: “Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection.”
To the contrary; one of the definitions certainly refers to it as the doctrine that there is no deity, what I would consider an active belief. But the other definition has it as “disbelief in the existence of a deity”. Disbelief is not belief; if it were, then having two definitions state the same thing would be superfluous.
Since I think it’s “disbelief” that we disagree on the definition on, I went back to look it up, much as on preview I see you have. Interestingly, “disbelief” is in a similar situation; two definitions, one that backs up your view (“mental rejection of something as untrue”). The other, however, refers to the act of disbelieving, which does provide definitions that include the “lack of belief” idea. I also disagree with your thoughts on the Random House definition, that “inability… to believe” goes beyond lack of belief; it makes no negative statements towards the belief, merely says that there is zero positive belief.
This is a fair point, though. I’d question your use of “skeptics”, but that’s probably another argument entirely. 
I disagree with your final point, though. Atheism certainly is not exclusively defined as simply a lack of belief; but likewise it is not exclusively defined as an active belief, either.
Of course Maher is an atheist. If hewas not sure there is no God he would not have made this movie. If I tell you I have a bear in a box and the bear hates onions and will kill anyone who throws onions at the box, if you thought there was any possibility of a onion hating bear being in the box you would not throw onions at it. If Maher thought there was a possibility there was a God who decides how Maher will spend eternity, he would not mock God. However, it is harder to not come off as an arrogant jerk while saying 90% of humanity are deluded fools and only me and those who believe like me are correct, so he pretends to be agnostic. Given that Maher comes off as an arrogant jerk ordering breakfast, he should at least be honest about his beliefs.
Does anyone else remember that Comedy Central show about the top 100 comedians ever. Told me all I needed to know about what kind of person Maher is.
RT, I already cited sources which show that disbelief is the ACTIVE REJECTION of a belief, rather than the mere lack of conviction either way.
Again, I already addressed that point. That’s not necessarily a problem for the theist, but it most certainly is a problem for the people here who are insisting that atheism is just a lack of belief in God. Far from contradicting my point then, your assertion supports the objection that I raised.
And I likewise cited a source which allows for a definition of lack of belief, plus disagreed with your interpretation of one of your sources. My argument was not limited to the part you quoted alone.
To try and put my argument against your interpretation again (this is to the Random House definition); it would be entirely accurate to say that a rock has the inability to believe in God. It lacks that ability; it is unable to believe. Does that then mean that that rock has an active belief that God does not exist? No, it just means that it has no positive belief. Negative belief - active belief against - is included in the “or” example of refusal to believe. Being able to define disbelief as requiring only an inability to believe most certainly means that a lack of belief qualifies without requiring also active negative belief.
Yes, it does, but it does not support the final statement you made, which was;
My contention is that atheism is not exclusively defined in any way, be it the version Voyager or I use or the version you find in dictionaries. There is no exclusive definition of atheism.
RT, I see where our point of confusion lies, and it’s my fault. I meant to say the following:
“I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen atheists here declare, “Dammit! Atheism just means a lack of belief!” Even if we allow for evolving definitions, the point remains that atheism is **NOT **exclusively defined in that manner.”
That is, I meant that incorrect to say that atheism is exclusively defined as “a lack of belief in God,” as emphasized by the context of my statement. It’s a typo, and I regret the confusion that this caused.
I do think that you’re misinterpreting the definiton of “disbelief” that’s given by Merriam-Webster, as I think it would take considerable handwaving to construe the Random House definition as mere absence of belief. Ultimately though, I think we can agree that when atheists declare “Atheism is just a lack of belief, dammit! That’s what it means!” then they are vastly overstating the matter.
So if you say that there is no exclusive definition of atheism… well, regardless of whether I agree with that or not, I think that’s ultimately the problem of those who do declare that it is only the absence of belief.
Doctrine? That’s generally considered a religious term!
Jesus frickin’ Christ, this is why I hate atheism/theism debates, with this kind of bullshit. I guess I have a “doctrine” and an “inability” and “refusal to believe” that there’s no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Zeus, ghosts or UFOs too. Good for me. Vampires/werewolves/Bigfoot/Yeti/Loch Ness Monster/god…it’s all the same to me, in regards to my “belief system” which is, I don’t believe in any of it.
Loved the movie, btw. I too thought it was very funny and laughed often. I never watch Maher’s show so I’m mainly judging him by this, and he was very funny and interesting. I didn’t think he was an asshole at all. And come on, that “ex-gay” guy really deserved that silly zinger. He laughed too, and if it really offended him, he wouldn’t have signed a waiver to allow himself to appear in the film.
The tribute Maher had for his mom at the end was very sweet.