Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[OnceConvinced]

Maher is a comedian. Treat him as such.

Should we treat evangelists who employ a lot of comedy as comedians too?

I've enjoyed preaching from many evangelists preaching the bible who are as funny as any stand up comedian. Should they be taken any more seriously than Maher just because they are Christians and preaching from the bible?

[OnceConvinced]

The wars? WW1 and WW2 saw Christians fighting each other. How can THAT be over Christianity?

Seriously? Have you ever mixed and mingled with Christians? There are often disagreements. Christians hate each other as much as they hate other people groups. Churches have fallen apart over disputes amongst leadership. There certainly is no unity there.

[AdHoc]

.
[Replying to post 29 by AdHoc]

Thank you for the usual (and in many ways unusual) thoughtful and challenging post.

But wouldn't that be like saying, nuclear technology is bad?

I maintain that mining and concentrating of radioactive materials IS BAD, foolish and very dangerous. Humans need sources of energy; however, there are alternatives that do not pose the massive risks of the nuclear industry.

When radioactive materials are dispersed in the rocks of the Earth's crust they pose minimal, if any, danger to life forms, particularly when deep underground. When those materials are mined and concentrated they become deadly – and retain their destructive potential for thousands of years or longer. Accidents happen, as we have seen repeatedly, with the result being uninhabitable areas that will persist for many generations.

Creating weapons of war is a very inappropriate use of those materials. Generating electricity is not much better (and may prove worse in the long run). So far nuclear accidents have had minimal impact on heavily populated areas – but many nuclear generating plants are very close to and downwind from major population concentrations.

I suggest that if religious organizations have value to society, instead of railing impotently against homosexual marriage and abortion or promoting themselves they should learn about nuclear dangers and actively campaign against all concentration of nuclear materials – and promote development of a system to safely dispose of radioactive materials accumulated over the past seventy-five years.

. . . if we rid the universe of nuclear power we'd lose the sun too.

The sun is the only nuclear facility that is relatively safe – being 93 million miles away. Even that has potential to inflict massive damage to life on Earth and/or life as we know it.

So we'll keep on going nuclear for now.

Evidently so – until a nuclear war or major disaster makes it obvious that nuclear weapons and power were a very stupid and costly mistake.

As Kennedy said, We all live under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness.

What about religion, is there any good reason to keep it?

Religions seem to be useful or necessary for some people – perhaps enough so to justify their existence whether what they teach is truthful or not.

Should we rid the world of these religious lessons? do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, care for widows and orphans, care for the least of these, share your bread with the hungry.

Those idealisms are NOT exclusive to religion and certainly not exclusive to Christianity. The same ideas can be (and are often) taught by other ideologies and cultural systems.

I'm glad to hear that, I think the world is better place if these ideologies proliferate. I think Mr. Maher would be better to focus on that rather than suggesting to people that all religion should be eradicated.

I agree with Mr Maher that the deeds in his list are terrible and we should rid ourselves of that

That makes three of us . . .

but do the teachings of Jesus Christ encourage a person to do those things?

The teachings of Jesus might have some value IF they were followed – even by Christians. From what I see there is a lot of talk and very little following (and I have a good observation point as resident of the Bible Belt – in addition to seeing the actions of many Christian members of this Forum).

If we did away with Christ's teachings would those things be more or less likely to have happened?

Perhaps the objection is not the teachings of Jesus – but to the actions of many who claim to be FOLLOWERS of Jesus. Their actions often don't reflect his words. Several of the atrocities mentioned tie directly to officials of Christendom and their flocks.

I can agree with this but the problem with Mr Maher's staement as presented, is that he seems to make no distinction between religion and the actions of religious followers. If He said "... These types of behaviours must stop" then I wouldn't disagree but what's chilling to me is he seems to be preaching the merits of wholesale indiscriminate eradication.

Haven't we as humans been down this road before?

It might have a different street name but we know where it ends...

[bjs]

Stalin was also an Aleprechaunist (as far as I know, anyway). So was Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Perhaps we should say that Aleprechaunism leads to mass murder?

That would depend. Did Stalin murder millions of people for the express purpose of reducing belief in leprechauns the way that he murdered millions of people for the express purpose of reducing religious belief?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

Then I am sure you will agree and won't distance yourself from the fact that the ideology of evolution killed the most people last century. Let alone the Holocaust of abortion taking place today.

Abortion is much different than invading and murdering people for not holding the same beliefs as you. Not even comparable. Not to mention a fetus is a fetus, not a human being yet. Preventing life is not taking life.

With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about... A fetus is not a human being? What?... Are you referring to a gorilla fetus or something?

You think partial birth abortion and harvesting the fetus' organs is PREVENTING life not TAKING it?

I'm going to assume you are ignorant of these brutal facts but if you aren't I have no respect for the position you are taking.

I don't even know what you're talking about with your "ideology of evolution". How exactly did the "ideology of evolution" kill the most people last century?

"There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

[AdHoc]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

I feel like there is something logically flawed in what Mr Maher is saying but I can't quite put my finger on what it is...

That suspected flaw you cant quite put your finger on is the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc

Ahhh... Yes thank you.

Like global warming being negatively correlated to the number of pirates... Which we know now is not true because the number of pirates is increasing... At least around the horn of Africa and at seedy hotels.

I tend to think of it terms of the lurking variable. In this case I would suggest the lurking variable is humans.

But of course its much more sexy to shout "RELIGION" and grab the pitchforks and torches.

[AdHoc]

I feel like there is something logically flawed in what Mr Maher is saying but I can't quite put my finger on what it is...

Basically he wants his listeners to come to the conclusion that we need to rid the earth of all religion because of all the evil things that religious people have done.

But wouldn't that be like saying, nuclear technology is bad?

No, not at all. Nuclear technology isn't a religion. It doesn't pretend to stake it's place on some moral high ground. Nuclear technology is just that. a technology.. As we develop it.. it can be much safer and a great benefit to the world. I wonder how many people died in Chernobyl and Fukuyama and Three Mile Island put together?

I wonder too... How many cases of cancer can be traced back to those incidents? Even if we could number them we'll have to wait for 20,000 years when the sarcophagus can be safely removed from the Chernobyl reactor and the last of the radioactive material has washed away from Fukushima.

What about religion, is there any good reason to keep it? Should we rid the world of these religious lessons? do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, care for widows and orphans, care for the least of these, share your bread with the hungry.

The moral ideas you mention don't need any religion to foster. Humanism suffices. We don't need supernatural gurus to explain any of this.

Well that's a relief. So who are the humanism gurus that brought these ideas forward then if it wasn't from religion?

I agree with Mr Maher that the deeds in his list are terrible and we should rid ourselves of that but do the teachings of Jesus Christ encourage a person to do those things? If we did away with Christ's teachings would those things be more or less likely to have happened?

We could speculate. However, what Maher points out is that religions don't guarantee moral behavior.

OK that point must've been left out of the OP quote because I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with that statement. I felt like he was pointing out that religion was synonomous with immoral behaviour.

[H.sapiens]

Stalin was also an Aleprechaunist (as far as I know, anyway). So was Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Perhaps we should say that Aleprechaunism leads to mass murder?

That would depend. Did Stalin murder millions of people for the express purpose of reducing belief in leprechauns the way that he murdered millions of people for the express purpose of reducing religious belief?

Neither, Stalin could have cared less about whether someone was religious or not ... the Russian Orthodox church sided with the Tsar and thus earned the undying enmity of the communists. It was a power over the people thing.

[Lion IRC]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

I feel like there is something logically flawed in what Mr Maher is saying but I can't quite put my finger on what it is...

That suspected flaw you cant quite put your finger on is the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc

Ahhh... Yes thank you.

Like global warming being negatively correlated to the number of pirates... Which we know now is not true because the number of pirates is increasing... At least around the horn of Africa and at seedy hotels.

I tend to think of it terms of the lurking variable. In this case I would suggest the lurking variable is humans.

But of course its much more sexy to shout "RELIGION" and grab the pitchforks and torches.

Bill Maher’s anti-theist polemics would have us blame religion anytime we saw a "nun" robbing a bank.

"Oh, but wait Bill, Lion IRC says thats not a REAL nun."



#No_True_Scotsman

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 69 by Lion IRC]

#LearnTheFallacyBeforeYouMisuseIt