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?

[Lion IRC]

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

Seriously? ...

Yes seriously. WW2 was NOT a war about transubstantiation or the Trinity or OSAS, or infralapsarianism and if you think it was then perhaps
....it would be prudent to learn some history.
Right Zzyzx ?

[Zzyzx]

.

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

It is not often that nuns are observed robbing banks. However, if they do so that certainly reflects poorly upon their religion.

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

It is not difficult for authorities, secular or sectarian, to verify whether a given person is a nun.

Can the same be said regarding whether a given person is a believer in Christianity?

Some seem to regard themselves as qualified to judge who is and who is not a Christian or a "REAL Christian" – however, they don't seem to be able to present authorization or empowerment from God or church to make such decisions.

It appears as though "Real Christian" translates to "Those who believe as I do and act as I think they should" and "Not-Real-Christian" encompasses everyone else. In other words, pure personal opinion.

On the larger scale, since Christianity takes credit for being the world's largest religion or 70% of the US population, it is counting all professing Christians of diverse beliefs and widely varying levels of religious devotion.

However, when abhorrent practices / actions / behaviors by Christians are called to attention defense mechanisms operate to distance the professed "Real Christians" from the bad actors and actions.

Claims are made that Christianity teaches moral behavior – but statistics indicate that Christians have rates of divorce, incarceration, abortion as high as or higher than other groups. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.

[Lion IRC]

.

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

It is not often that nuns are observed robbing banks...

Real nuns?
Remember what you said about my atheist pedophile fake clergy post?

Anyway, I'm glad you took the time to reply me. Thanks

I was worried you had turned your back on me here and were no longer willing to engage.

[enviousintheeverafter]

It is not often that nuns are observed robbing banks. However, if they do so that certainly reflects poorly upon their religion.

Moreover, this is sort of disingenuous; if nuns frequently robbed banks, and there there was some ostensible causal link between the two, then this is significant. Religion has displayed a consistent (and well-documented) pattern of abuse, in particular ways that appear to be at least partially a function of features religion as such (authoritarian use of violence and the exclusion/persecution of out-groups in particular).

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 74 by enviousintheeverafter]

The point is that authoritarian use of violence and the exclusion/persecution of out-groups occurs in species that dont demonstrate any religiosity whatsoever.

Such in group/out group behavior isnt a characteristic of religion - it's a characteristic of primates (and hundreds of other species.)

Bill Maher rails against supposedly 'religious" misogyny but on Darwinian evolutionary models, such behavior isnt immoral - it's naturally selected.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 74 by enviousintheeverafter]

The point is that authoritarian use of violence and the exclusion/persecution of out-groups occurs in species that dont demonstrate any religiosity whatsoever.

Such in group/out group behavior isnt a characteristic of religion - it's a characteristic of primates (and hundreds of other species.)

Bill Maher rails against supposedly 'religious" misogyny but on Darwinian evolutionary models, such behavior isnt immoral - it's naturally selected.

Actually that's not the case, most indications are that early humans were quite friendly toward each other and that the various sub groups (e.g., Neanderthals) were like absorbed rather than slain.

I'd be more inclined to observe that religion seems to more often rely on violence and the exclusion/persecution of out-groups than any other human institution.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 76 by H.sapiens]

I agree most humans are friendly to each other.

I also agree think that most humans are...surprise, surprise...religious.

So it would seem that Bill doesnt really have much of a point at all unless he wants to tar the majority with minority exceptions and straw arguments.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 74 by enviousintheeverafter]

The point is that authoritarian use of violence and the exclusion/persecution of out-groups occurs in species that dont demonstrate any religiosity whatsoever.

So? That doesn't change the fact that religion facilitates and often motivates such behavior.

Such in group/out group behavior isnt a characteristic of religion - it's a characteristic of primates (and hundreds of other species.)

Obviously not all human social/cultural practices and institutions encourage and motivate the exclusion and persecution of out-groups, or do so to the degree that religion has.

Bill Maher rails against supposedly 'religious" misogyny but on Darwinian evolutionary models, such behavior isnt immoral - it's naturally selected.

Talk about a non-sequitur. That something is selected for doesn't entail that it is not immoral.

[Dropship]

Don't 'shove' these so-called Christians off to the side by (personally, your personal opinion). As unpleasant/uncomfortable as it is, these were your religious ancestors..

Some of my loudest opponents on the internet religious discussion circuit call themselves Christians, but if they're real christians I'm Mary Poppins!
Same with my "religious ancestors", I'm no more spiritually related to them than I am to Attilla the Hun..

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 79 by Dropship]

Do you count these as Christians?

Catholics
Baptists
Pentecostalists
Mormons
Presbyterians
Anglicans
Non denominationals
Anglicans
Etc?


Which theology is a real Christian to you?