1. There were other god-like messiahs that was crucified, walked on water, healed sick, had Lazarus, etc? Plus they were Egyptian and seeing how the Jews were not on the best terms with them while they were obviously influenced by them during their imprisonment , I can see them adopting some of the mythos. When we talk about what is real (historically cross documented from unrelated sources and paradigms) and what is candy coating to sweeten the story or hard truth, my thoughts nor discovery have ever been that the crucifixion is adopted. Dec 25th? Yeah ok that is made up, the story of Jonah, sure. Adam and Eve, completely adopted (even before there was cuneiform) absolutely. But the crucifixion and Lazarus? I dont care so much about walking on water because rumor rumblings gain speed and size through ear canals, but hold the flipping phone for a second! Without the crucifixion having the meaning and truth of my sins being weighed and measured+without the resurrection, then this is a complete farce and Deepak Chopra in his book, The Third Jesus was right. That this is just an existential higher truth leading to a God principle that can be found through one path yet under many names. In addition, Lazarus’ story is in-depth. The running down the hill, “where were you!” the “Jesus wept”

But getting back to the topic – I kind of think that same idea is in part what is being expressed here: a cursory look at Faith may leave you unmoved and shaking your head at people’s gullibility. The behavior of some people who call themselves faithful may turn you off (as a modern man would be suspicious that a slave-holding Jefferson could know anything about freedom).

A deeper dive (as in, reading the other writings of the framers)brings faith into a new light. Oddly, prayer itself can often do that – going through the motions. It may still not be for you, but it might give you a better understanding.

It is most certainly a debatable topic, but in the end is probably tangential to this particular thread. But please don’t misunderstand me – I do not espouse freedom from religion, as you put it. I’m just wary of injustices upon minorities.

It also brings another factor to mind for me, an aspect of human nature I’ve observed. I’ll illustrate using myself as an example. Since I am basically humanist in philosophy, the prospect of humanist proselytization does not bother me very much, emotionally. However I realize this in spite of the knowledge that this imbalance is unjust. In a manner, it fits the precise criteria that I’d otherwise be concerned with if the philosophy in question were Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. This is obviously hypocritical.

And in the same vein, I have a hard time imagining that a Christian majority would do much to address this imbalance if the dominant philosophy taught were Christian.

As for the Constitution, my (perhaps shoddy) memory tells me that it’s wide open to interpretation one way or the other. Obviously I should go and re-read it after this post. But don’t pin us with deliberately mis-interpreting. It is possible that we’re being honest, not insidious. ;)

@Andreas, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. My original point was that some things will not make sense without thorough knowledge, both faith related and otherwise. We who aren’t of faith should bare that in mind.

The point is, deal with the truth of what was intended, understand what is being given up, and then let people decide for themselves what social contract they wish to ratify.

And I think there is a legitimate case to be made that children ARE being proselytized for humanism in schools. There should be no proselytizing of any kind, excepting in private, religion and/or philosophy based schools.

I continue to be amazed at the number of people who still think that there is some mention of “a Christian Nation” in the Constitution. It’s frightening.

What if I don’t want my children exposed to Christianity in public?

Or to quote Richard Lederer: “There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.”

And when I look at the religious pushback against science and social liberties at the moment, I think he is right.

And I just would like to mention that such trifles “separation of powers”, “interstate commerce” and “right to privacy” do not appear in the Constitution either. So… away with them?

@Miles: my point about reading up on stuff is this: have you really really studied the Qu’ran? How can you be sure that *that* isn’t the right belief? Or what about the Torah? How can you disregard these holy works (accepted by millions and millions of fervent believers). How do you come to the conclusion that they are wrong? By studying them all as much as the bible? Or by saying “I have the true faith, so they *must* be wrong?”

This freedom has been turned on its head, and as many before me have said – the article never gave freedom from religion, but of it.

I continue to be amazed at the number of people who still think that there is some mention of “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. It’s frightening.

Regarding the everyday consequences you list as example – Boy do I agree that they’re points that should be made. But look at how he presents them. He’s not going to change anyone’s mind, not even the silent moderates. Why? Because he leaves them with no middle-ground. His stances, agenda, and presentation leave things in a black-and-white dichotomy. People don’t just take off their faith like a coat. He’s cheer leading for those who agree completely, and bullying everyone else.
That’s BS, and it undermines any meaningful discussion on these important topics. I think I’m unhappy with Maher for a pretty good reason.
But at least he’s sorta funny.

Perhaps if he instead made a movie about the separation of church and state we’d see more effect. At least then it doesn’t actively alienate so many people.

If I would tell you that I believe in invisible elves living in my basement, and you would tell me that you don’t believe that… how would you like my advice to first read a lot of books on the invisible elf philosophy, before you dare to point out that this might, in fact, made up.

Plus, when it comes to the “anthropic argument”, “cosmological argument” or the “ontological argument”, you will find a lot of material written by atheist on the subject pointing to flaws in the philosophical argument and the special pleading involved (e.g. the first cause argument: EVERYTHING needs a cause, except of course god himself, because that would defeat our argument. But everything else does, no exceptions…)

I think generally Maher talks more about the everyday consequences of people believing in their variety of deity – war, oppression of women, the pope speaking against contraception in AIDS-riddled Africa and so forth.

And I think these are valid points, and he is right to make them, because moderate religious people are suspiciously silent about these things.

Here on the other hand the discussion is about philosophical ramifications, and that’s a little bit like discussing the exact color of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

I am happy for all intellectual discourse – but don’t be mad at Maher for the wrong reasons.

By the way: I thought some of the interviewees were jerks too and deserved it!

What exactly *is* the point. Can anyone please tell me?

Anyway: I liked what the Pastor said, but I don’t agree with the “it depends on which section of the bible you read” argument. Nobody would care if religious people wouldn’t use the bible to push their world view (no abortion, no gay marriage, no stem cell research) down everybody’s throat.

Bill Maher had a wide array of people in his film, because this strange belief in god(s) and the literal intepretation of the holy scripture is so widespread.

I think it is a lot of straw men to push over: in America polls show again and again that almost two thirds of Americans believe the bible to be the literal word of god. And when it comes to Republicans or evangelical christians it’s even more. So I don’t buy the talk about a few crazy guys.

Plus I think you missed a point of Maher movie: he showed that believing in crap like scientology is in no way better or worse than believing in any of the other gods. It’s the principle that’s bad. If somebody tells you about the afterlife, he should not be able to point at an old book and tell me “that’s how I know what will happen after we die”.

To sum it up: if it was only theologians and philosophers arguing about this over a cup of coffee, I would not mind at all. But there are many, many people who want to put the belief in their locally popular deity in to law for everyone.

And I think this is a point that needs to be fought by moderate christians as well as atheists.

The existence of God is a philosophical argument. If he wants to seriously engage in it he should start with some basic philosophy that has been rationally laid out by great minds over the past few thousand years.

He never mentions once any of the most convincing philosophical arguments like the “moral argument”, the “anthropic argument”, “cosmological argument” (first cause), the “ontological argument” or others. But real philosophy doesn’t mix well with Maher’s biased propaganda.

But if any of you are truly interested in delving into the real questions of God’s existence…I would suggest engaging some of these arguments in depth (Read some Plato, Aquinas, etc. or Peter Kreeft, or Scott Hahn’s “Reasons to Believe”).

When we use our reason and combine it with our first hand experiential knowledge of our participation in creation (being a human ourselves) we can arrive at a certainty about the existence of God (even without a particular religion). We just have to overcome these garbage distractions that people like Maher poison the discussion with. And if you keep searching honestly you will come to know God’s existence as well.

We can’t see the forest for the trees. God’s existence is staring us so plainly in the face that we (myself included) often miss the point on a daily basis. God bless ya.

When I say Bill Maher misses the point, I am referring to the fact that he doesn’t even begin to answer or engage the real questions of God’s existence.

Here’s an example: Bill Maher (as well as other anti-theists) make silly arguments against God like…”It’s silly to believe in God because there is no way he could hear billions of people’s prayers at once.” This is such a small minded point. Here we are talking about a being that created everything that exists…that created time itself. And here Maher is wasting time with a distraction about whether or not God can possibly do a certain amount of work (that would be impossible for a human being) within a certain time constraint. And then he says therefore God can’t exist.

Another example: Maher says things like “Look at how many bad people there have been and these horrible things they have done in the name of religion…therefore God can’t exist.” Any rational person recognizes these as totally fallacious logical arguments. They are all distractions. They are all designed to confuse people and they entirely miss the point.