Bill Maher's new film "Religulous" is important -- not because I agree with Mr. Maher's opinions, but because I find his fundamental mission to call into question the certitude of all organized religions monumentally necessary. I'd even say it was God's work.
What happens when a Jew and a Catholic go to see Religulous? They spend about $20 bucks. Whether it was well spent is the better question. I figured t...
Maher's examination of religion (including his own religious past) is remarkably candid and sympathetic toward the victims of religious mythology.
I know that your new film is about to debut, Religulous, and that you mean it to be funny. Truthfully, my friend, faith is a funny thing. Not funny ha-ha, funny odd.
Last night Grey Goose Entertainment and Sundance Channel hosted their Iconoclasts party, celebrating the new season with episodes featuring Cameron Di...
I ask merely that teens taking the test receive some kind of punishment that any high school or college student would if caught lying to a professor, cheating on an exam or plagiarizing a paper.
Last week a mix of water and sanitation experts gathered for World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden to mull over the world's biggest public health crisis. The problem is that not enough people paid attention.
We asked political observers -- including Nora Ephron, Peggy Noonan, Harry Shearer, Conrad Black, Richard Belzer, David Frum, Paul Slansky, and Joe and Jerry Long -- to weigh in on the question: Who was our most comical president?
Given that it's so good for their babies and themselves, why don't more mothers breastfeed?
Instead of stuffing a turkey this year, stuff the tradition of turkey for Thanksgiving right where it belongs -- in history's trash can.
In the Age of Irony, there is no such thing as just a pig. It's what kind of joke you make about the pig that gets your point across. Its your mega-pig that counts.
I'm going to throw the remote through the TV if one more news twink says something on the order of "When we come back, we'll look into what drives a successful man like Eliot Spitzer to risk it all..." Oh yes, let's convene a panel of experts for that.
I don't think it matters that Ralph Nader's running. It didn't matter in 2004. How many people even remember he ran in 2004? So it's silly to make a big issue of it.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nobody believes Darwin (or anyone) was right about *everything*. But you'd have to be kidding yourself or be completely ignorant of empirical science to not see that the theory of evolution is an observable, quantifiable, defensible science. It isn't a "theory" in the common vernacular sense. It is a *scientific theory* which means it has undergone unbiased, rigorous scientific analysis. The preponderance of the evidence since the theory was first introduced has been in favor of the sound correctness of the hypothesis. In order to disprove the theory would be to disprove ALL of the underlying science which evaluated the evidential data. In other words, science would have to be turned on its head.
Sorry. Sometimes my irreverence leans toward irrelevance. But I still maintain that in a random universe, the guy who came up with the theory of evolution wouldn't look like a deity in a Reubens painting. Cosmic wink.
Richard Dawkins worships an infallible bearded old man in the sky, and the holy book he wrote. Really, he does. He KNOWS that "Origin of Species" was completely right about everything.
Am I the only person who finds this thread impossible to navigate with all the "There are more comments on this thread" notices? I just gave up seeking out a comment I posted last night. So much for back and forth....
TmsPaine and Zanti:
I tried to post below but it's been an hour and still hasn't posted. I think that I have a good point and I hope you both can agree:
"The line to draw is this: If you make a claim (there is such a thing as a soul, God exists, the Earth is 6000 years old) - you must show some proof. Otherwise you are playing make-believe and should be treated as a child." - TmsPaine
Come on. If you are that intellectually strict, then you are your own brand of extreme. Why not draw the line at the Harm Principle?. If a person peacefully believes something (no matter how illogical or laughable) then what authority do we have to 'punish' them whether it be with weapons or words? What is the true danger in someone believing what we find to be silly? I'd rather be tolerant and talk with the person to 'understand' why they believe what they believe. Then, if appropriate, articulate another point of view.
There are some things that we should, of course, not allow "in the name of religion". Denigration of another human being, comes to mind. Laws made based on dogmatic principles rather than objective morals, is another. Otherwise, we humans are free to think, believe, and feel what we think. Pushing "logic" onto a person you find unreasonable or admonishing them for believing in something "false" is not being enlightened. It's being petty and cruel. Furthermore, it is ineffective.
EtoZ - I spent two hours crafting a devastating reply. Just when I was about to hit the post button, I read your "apology" post. So I checked out your MySpace page. Now I have to completely re-write my rebuttal to reflect the new awesome respect I have for you. I still disagree, though...
Aww. Haha. No worries. I can take an intellectual punch or two! I've been known to be wrong, so I'm open to reading your response. :)