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?

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 123 by Lion IRC]

"I simply make the point that abortion is only relevant to those who have so-called 'unwanted' pregnancies (aka - unwanted human beings.) Thus, if you don't have sexual intercourse you will never find yourself in the position of having to decide whether or not to have an abortion so the issue at hand is not whether one has sex, it is whether or not one ends the life of an unborn human being."

Never? Even a person who choses not to have sexual intercourse can find themselves pregnant via rape. To limit the relevancy of abortion to only those who are already pregnant is leaving out an entire discussion that would reduce unwanted pregnancies from existing in the first place. I guess that's so we don't have to discuss whether birth control is murder and thus weakening your argument? It also seems to be that if you can divide women into categories of "bad" and "good" the bad being much less numbers than good, you can control the discussion much more easily. Like politicians in favor of States rights over Government rights. Divide and conquer as the saying goes. I don't agree.


"Persuading people to the view that unborn human beings have rights IS entirely about prevention."

I submit that even if you are successful in giving fetuses rights, it will not prevent abortion nor will it turn and unwanted pregnancy into a wanted one.

"Wait, you mean people have abortions because they want to 'cleanse' society of people with disability? Down's Syndrome? ALS - Lou Gehrig's disease?"

What I specifically said was during an unsuccessful abortion attempt, healthy fetuses can be physically and mentally damaged. Their prolonged suffering is of concern to me.

When my mother succumbed to the affects of Alzheimers I watched her suffer, her body contorted into painful positions and she went blind, she lost so much weight and became so weak her skin would break and she suffered huge open sores, she also choked whenever we fed her. I lost sleep, had nightmares and couldn't eat, and ended up in the hospital with a severe kidney stone (which I have never had before and which is commonly caused by stress. I was not taking care of myself or my family during those long years as I should have. I told my husband that if I was ever in that position he'd better take me out if I couldn't do it myself. It was sheer agony. It is not politically correct to view death this way I know, but I also know that it would have been the best thing for my mother, no doubt.

"How Has Stephen Hawking Lived to 70 With ALS?"

Stephen Hawking was not diagnosed until he was 21. It is an irrelevant argument. However, he does not appear to be suffering. If he started to suffer and desired death, As a parent I would honor it.

Thanks for responding to my post.

[Hamsaka]

Bill Maher, comedian and friend to the Openly Secular campaign, said in a recent interview that America would probably elect a pedophile over an atheist.

What a disgusting thing to say about Americans.
Is that really the sort of thing which is going to endear Mr Maher to ordinary Americans?
It's just like the comments in the Op.
Ignorant, strawman polemics which betray a hatred of God by proxy.

If there weren't some kernels of truth in what Maher said, then I'd agree with you completely (about the polemics, strawmen and ignorance).

Pew Research Center conducts many large-sample ratings of public opinion across the world, and many of the results indicate atheists are considered as untrustworthy as our 'consensus' (we all agree, pretty much) bad people, like pedophiles. The small sample study Enviousintheeverafter posted seems to reflect the Pew Research Center's results.

Edited to add: http://www.people-press.org/2011/06/02/ ... nthusiasm/

[enviousintheeverafter]

I sure hope the link you provided is not your sole evidence of this extraordinary statement.

Hardly. Similar polls consistently find the same thing; atheists are likely the most disliked minority group in America, are associated with immoral behavior, and are subject to various prejudiced views (that they shouldn't be president, we don't want them around our children, etc.)- see the various Pew Research Polls, the U of MN's 2006 study, etc. And Gervais' study concluded that "when reading a description of someone committing an immoral act, participants readily and intuitively assumed that the person was an atheist."

This, and the pedophile statement before it in another post are, in my opinion, so false that they couldn't be more false.

That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion, inconsistent with the facts as it may be.

If many Americans view atheists as being on par with rapists then why are Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on the best selling list?

Why would the one preclude the other? If they did, why do autobiographies by serial killers, corrupt politicians and other pariahs do so well?

Please retract this ridiculous claim.

Show me some credible reason to do so and I'll consider it. I'm not going to retract a claim simply because you don't like it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Cephus]

The strawman was pointed out - there is no teaching of Christianity to justify violence by believers.

The other strawman is to assume that the actions of a saved sinner are always Christian.

[Realworldjack]

.

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?

Sorry, I am so late to the game. I see there has been a lot of comments, I have not read many of them, so if the point I make has already been made then I apologize, but I sort of doubt it has been.

I have listened to, Maher on occasions, and would like to watch him more, but I don't know exactly where to find his show, if he in fact still has one. At any rate, although I find myself in disagreement more, than not with Maher, I do believe he is a thinker, and I will also say, he makes many good points. What I am attempting to say here is, whether I believe his points are valid or not, he does cause me to think.

With all the above being said, as we consider the OP, I would say, Maher makes an extremely good point, and I would also say, it is more than likely valid.

The problem I see, is the definition of words. As an example, let's consider the definition of the word, "scan." This word can, and does have two completely, and opposing definitions. One definition is, "to glance at, or to read hastily," such as if I ask you to scan through this file, and give me the highlights.

Another definition of the same exact word is, "to examine the particulars of minutely; scrutinize." So, as you can see, the same exact word, can have opposing definitions.

So then, the word I want to, "scan" here, (and when I use the word, "scan" I mean scrutinize) is, "religion."

If you go to a dictionary, and examine the word, religion you will find a number of definitions. The particular dictionary I referenced, had six definitions. Each of these definitions referred to either, a moral code, a practice of some sort, or ethics. In other words the focus is on the behavior of the adherents. It is a list of things that must be done. If this is the true definition of, "religion" then Christianity would not fall under this definition.

You see, the focus of Christianity is not on the behavior of it's adherents, (rules, laws, list of things to do) rather the focus is on what God has done. Sure, there are laws, rules, and lists of things to do in the Bible, but in the end, when you take the whole of the Bible into context, these laws are given to demonstrate to us that we do not, and cannot follow law. With this being the case, as Christians, we are to let go of our own selves, and efforts towards morality, and grab a hold of what God has done for us, which is the Gospel, which means Good News.

So the focus of Christianity is, Good News as opposed to law. You cannot live Good News, rather you can only live in light of the Good News. Now, this Good News, should have a changing effect, but the focus is not on our change, or our behavior, because it would be futile for me to behave morally, in attempt to be a moral person, because I will never be moral. If I happen to do any thing that may be considered good, it does not demonstrate that I am moral, it would simply be a response to the underserved favor shown to me by God. In other words, the good I may do, is not out of obligation, because it is on the list of things that must be done, in order for me to earn myself some sort of morality, or worth, but rather out of gratitude.

Since the laws recorded in the Bible are there to demonstrate my immorality, rather than to demonstrate it, I as a Christian could not possibly look down on others who seem to be immoral, and I could not possibly want to enforce these laws on others, seeing as how, I cannot keep them myself.

With all the above being said, it certainly seems as if, the focus of, "religion" is on the individual, (list of things to do). With this being the case, there certainly are those that adhere to religion, that have become self deceived into believing, they are not only capable of keeping law, but they do in fact keep the law. This then means, the problems of the world, in their eyes, are those who do not keep the law, therefore the law must be enforced upon them.

Now, are there those that claim to adhere to Christianity, that have turned Christianity into, "religion?" Absolutely, and without a doubt. However, if I am correct about what Christianity actually teaches, then the biggest question becomes, is it fair to blame Christianity, for wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, etc., etc.? Or should we say, Christianity does not actually teach these sort of things, therefore those who are guilty of these crimes, are those attempting to turn Christianity, (Good News) into, "religion" (a list of things we must do)?

In the end, I believe I would have to agree with, Maher. Religion, (a list of things we must do) is evil, and has been, and continues to be the cause of much strife in the world. Christianity, (Good News) cannot be lived, but simply, and humbly received.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since the laws recorded in the Bible are there to demonstrate my immorality, rather than to demonstrate it, I as a Christian could not possibly look down on others who seem to be immoral, and I could not possibly want to enforce these laws on others, seeing as how, I cannot keep them myself.

I nominate you for Pope – or whatever comparable position.

If this was the prevailing attitude within Christendom (rather than self-righteousness and condemnation of others – the "Curse of Christianity"), I would be supportive because it could become a force for good / positive rather than negative.

[Zzyzx]

.

Isn't it fortunate (or unfortunate) that there is an abundance of self-declared moralists and religionists who claim to know what is best for everyone.

Maybe they do know best.
Let's hear what they have to say.

We DO hear what "they have to say" over and over.

I have been asking for sound evidence to SUPPORT what they say – and have YET to encounter anything other than opinions (ancient or modern), moralizing, self-righteousness, and emotions.

That way the contest of ideas isn't lop-sided in favor of atheists.
What do you think? Mono-culture or diversity?

Everyone here is welcome to express and defend their ideas. Those which are most in accord with reasoning and evidence fare much better than those based in emotion and belief.

Those who oppose abortion shouldn't have one. Period. Full stop.

I'm pretty sure that those who oppose abortion...don't have abortions.

A half a million abortions by Christian women seems to indicate otherwise.

Of course, REAL Christians can write off that half million as "Not Real Christians or they wouldn't do that" – and back themselves into the corner of trying to distinguish between "Real Christians" and those who identify as Christians who are not "Real Christians" – which is nothing more than personal opinion.

So it's kind of redundant for you to preach at them not to have one.

Preach? I object to abortion opponents attempting to force their ideas onto others. Don't have one yourself, but don't mind the business of others.

Christian women have as many or more abortions per capita as other groups.

Well obviously if atheists use birth control more than Christians then the rates of unwanted pregnancy are going to differ.

Aren't Christians "supposed" to be opposed to abortion? Is it preaching to point out that those who talk big don't walk the talk in their own actions?

Are Non-Christians just smart enough to use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

If a person's religiousity had no bearing on rates of abortion, the abortion-on-demand lobby wouldn't care about religious arguments against abortion.

Has someone claimed that religiosity has no bearing on abortion rates?

What has been said is that religious preaching against religion has not resulted in low abortion rates among those who are members of those religions.

Abstinence programs are a dismal failure in spite of all sorts of "pledges", promises and threats.

The way to stop abortions isnt avoiding unprotected sex.

Perhaps there is reasoning somewhere in that – but it escapes me (and perhaps others).

So abstinence is totally irrelevant because only pregnant people have abortions.

It might be beneficial to pass this information on to proponents of the failed abstinence programs.

Abortions will stop when pregnant people decide NOT to have an abortion.

That seems to be wishful thinking. Unwanted pregnancies DO occur (to Christians as well as Non-Christians). When that happens women often choose to have abortions (Christians as well as Non-Christians).

Expecting to eliminate abortions by coercing women to decide against abortion doesn't seem to work – even in Christendom.

Christians have as high a divorce rate

So what? Getting a divorce is a piece of cake. But at least it doesn't involve killing an unborn baby.

Doesn't / didn't Christianity as well as its originators preach against divorce? Where are the high Christian morals among those who claim to be followers?

Christians are incarcerated at rates as great as or greater than other groups.

They aren't incarcerated for blasphemy are they?
They aren't in jail for crimes against the church.
They are in jail for theft - (See the Ten Commandments)
They are in jail for murder - (See the Ten Commandments)
The point being that had they obeyed the Ten Commandments they wouldn't be in jail.

Yup, if Christians actually walked the talk their crime rate should be very low. However, the Ten Suggestions (which are Jewish, not Christian) don't seem to make any difference in crime rate. They are just a talking point for religion promoters.

And as for the supposed myth about how few atheists there are in jail,

Do you have support for the conjecture of "myth" regarding Atheists incarcerated? How, exactly, do you know the "real" theological position of prisoners?

I'll believe that when all the atheists pretending to be Christian clergy are gone.

Kindly document "all the Atheists pretending to be Christian clergy" – show that it is more than just a personal opinion. Cite actual studies, statistics, information . . . Demonstrate to readers that this is more than just blowing smoke.

(Yep, some atheists lie about being Christian, whether in jail or not.)

Evidently some who claim to be Christians lie about their religion too – evidenced by 40% of the US population claiming in surveys to attend church regularly while actual attendance statistics indicate only 20% actually do attend. A fifty percent untruth level does not speak well of Christian morals, does it?

So much for "Christian morals."

If a Christian is in jail for murder are they saying that murder is OK according to Christianity? No, of course they aren't! They are doing their time for something they confess is actually wrong. In fact it's kind of the central message of Christianity that we sin, we realise and regret our sin and we repent.
Other non-theistic world views assert that there really is no objective moral right and wrong and that if you want to abort your unborn child, that's your business.

Notice that abortion is LEGAL in the US and many educated, industrialized nations.

Rather than comparing oranges to basketballs, let's compare Christian's convicted of murder (and illegal activity) and Non-Christians convinced of murder. WHAT, exactly, is the difference? Are Christians more repentant or regretful?

Before preaching about what others should do "take the log from your own eye" and show by your actions what should be done.

Yep. This is the typical...mind your own business model of the abortion-on-demand lobby.
"My body, my choice"
Strange that the Church is never asked to mind it's own business when it is helping to feed the poor.

Churches devote ONE PERCENT of their income on average to benevolent causes (according to Christian sources). They spend many times that amount building and maintaining palaces of worship and paying the professional religionists who preach.

Strange that the unmarried mother is happy to receive financial support from the same taxpayers who are told that a woman's pregnancy is solely her business.

Should those receiving financial support from the government (taxpayers) be told how to live, what to buy, where to live, what medical care to seek?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 120:

Strange that the Church is never asked to mind it's own business when it is helping to feed the poor.

Stranger still, they'd petition the government to have taxpayers help 'em pay for it. Ya know, what with 'em being all tax exempt and all.

Strange that the unmarried mother is happy to receive financial support from the same taxpayers who are told that a woman's pregnancy is solely her business.

Stranger still, so many telling her she must keep that baby would then refuse to use tax money to do it.


I think what we see here is indication of a religious notion that says only the Church should provide help to folks, as opposed to taxpayers.

Indicative of an attempt to proselytize to a captive audience.

[Clownboat]

Yes, that's right. Abortion-on-demand campaigners know that even after an unborn human is begrudgingly conceded to "be" an actual member of the same species, it is still necessary to try and minimise their value and worth.

Let's examine this value shall we? Let's find out for real where the actual value and worths are.

Your in a burning building that will collapse in moments. You have a self contained containing labeled 'live embryos' on one side of the room, and on the other you have a terrified 3 year old.

You can save one, but not both.

According to your argument, you would save the numerous embryos over the 3 year old. As a parent, I would consider such a thing as leaving my 3 year old to die over some embryos to be evil.

Which has more value in this scenario? Clearly, as a parent, the actual child has more value. I don't care if there are a thousand embryos.

(Lion) - "You're just minimizing the value"!
Be honest. Who would you save? The numerous embryos, or the 3 yr old? The value of a 3 yr old far outweighs that of a thousand embryos IMO. I can only assume you agree, but will try your darnedest to avoid providing an answer.

Readers, I ask that you ask yourself this question as well and see if you feel the real 'value difference'.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 137:

>clarity edit by JoeyKnothed<
You're in a burning building that will collapse in moments. You have a shelf containing 'live embryos' on one side of the room, and on the other you have a terrified 3 year old.

You can save one, but not both.
...
Readers, I ask that you ask yourself this question as well and see if you feel the real 'value difference'.

Pour the embryos on the fire, invert the toddler, and use his hair to sop up the mess.

All will have contributed, all will have found value in God's eyes.