I just finished watching the movie "Religulous" written by, and starring Bill Maher. No, I didn't pay for it. I try to never contribute money to people that are purposely trying to hurt someone else. A friend of mine thought I might get a kick out of it, so he brought his copy over. In case you don't know who Bill is, Mr. Maher got his start doing stand up comedy. Like a lot of stand up comedians, he had a hard time finding his nitch. Then one day, Bill discovered something that would become his trademark; taunting religious people. The best part for Bill was, he enjoyed it, even if he didn't know why.I'm not a religious person, so Bill's attempts to crawl under my skin with his smartzy "I'm so much more intelligent than you, cuz I don't believe in fairy tales" crap doesn't do much for me. Whether or not the Christians are following a false prophet doesn't interest me. Why the Mormons wear those "magic undies" doesn't fascinate me, and the millions of contradictions that Bill and his faithful followers find in religious documents are only mildly worth listening to. But I am very curious as to why Mr. Maher devotes so much of his life to attacking other people's beliefs.
I like religious people. There, I said it.
I like that they have a moral compass dictated by a group, not by their own individual wants and needs. I like their commitment to their family and their understanding that some things are just plain wrong. I even married a sweet Catholic girl and entertained myself for a while by going to church with her (mostly Easter and Christmas). I tried to be a follower, but hard as I tried, it just wasn't for me. I liked the morality though. I'm a bit of an "Old Testament" guy at heart. I love a story where the bad guys get theirs in the end. But the "pray on Sunday, sin on Monday" attitude kind of lost me. I like the Old God. The Great Smiter. Now religion is all about forgiveness. How can someone live a life of hurting people and then on his deathbed suddenly ask for forgiveness and get it? Not in my world. Want forgiveness? Admit your wrongs before you find out your dying, repair the damage you've done and then seriously repent from your hurtful ways. Then maybe. For the rest of you...let the smiting begin, in the smoking section.
Still, I have never felt the need to try to talk anyone out of their religion.
Why would I? If it brings them comfort during times of hardship, what's the problem, Bill? Does it really bother you that much that someone has faith in something that you personally don't believe exists? At first I thought that Mr. Maher was just making a few quick bucks on haters. If a few girls with, shall we say, lowered morality, happen to want to sleep him in the process. Hey, bonus! I really believed that was about it.
Then, about half-way through the movie, an epiphany. There sat Bill Maher, with his poor old gray-haired mother, talking about his religious upbringing, when a little chestnut fell right out of the tree. Bill apparently was crushed as a child when he found out there was no Santa. There it was staring me in the face. Bill was bitter that he was lied to and started to question everything. If there was no Santa, and no Easter Bunny, and no Tooth Fairy, then by God, there would be no God! And not just no God for Bill, no God for anyone. They would all have to have their faith crushed just like his was. Bill Maher is simply acting out his own hurt by hurting others.
Suddenly, I found myself pitying poor little Billy and his broken Christmas heart.
So, let's all do Bill Maher a favor and help him get over his pain. Everyone print off a copy of this piece and send it to Bill Maher. Maybe after seeing it for the tenth or hundredth time, Bill will finally see himself for what he really is, a selfish, bitter little man who is still carrying around his childhood pain. There is help for people like Bill Maher, but first, they must admit they have a problem. So, let's all get together and help Bill to help himself. It is, after all, the Christian thing to do. H.C.
21 comments:
i haven't seen religulous but i used to watch politically incorrect pretty regularly and i have to say i long ago came to the same conclusion, that maher is a very bitter child. sad really.
You know i have the unmost respect for you h.c., and in my eyes you are one of the most moral people i know. However we have a fundamental disagreement on this issue, not about bill, cuz im not much of a fan either. But with regard to being a fan of the old testament, I strongly feel that neither you nor any christian today really gets their moral compass from the bible. There are many, many parts of the bible which give the most deplorable examples of morality. For an experiment take these accounts of prominent figures in bible history, and apply them to todays standard of morality.
continued......
The legend of the animals going
into the ark two by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the(presumably blameless)animals as well.
Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something
when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom. But
Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you,
brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters
which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these
men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my
roof (Genesis 19: 7-8).
Whatever else this strange story might mean, it surely tells us
something about the respect accorded to women in this intensely
religious culture. As it happened, Lot's bargaining away of his
daughters' virginity proved unnecessary, for the angels succeeded in repelling the marauders by miraculously striking them blind. They then warned Lot to decamp immediately with his family and his animals, because the city was about to be destroyed. The whole household escaped, with the exception of Lot's unfortunate wife,whom the Lord turned into a pillar of salt because she committed the offence - comparatively mild, one might have thought - of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks display.
Lot's two daughters make a brief reappearance in the story. After
their mother was turned into a pillar of salt, they lived with their father in a cave up a mountain. Starved of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and copulate with him. Lot was beyond noticing when his elder daughter arrived in his bed or when
she left, but he was not too drunk to impregnate her. The next night
the two daughters agreed it was the younger one's turn. Again Lot
was too drunk to notice, and he impregnated her too (Genesis 19:
31-6). If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.
cont....
he story of Lot and the Sodomites is eerily echoed in chapter
19 of the book of Judges, where an unnamed Levite (priest) was
travelling with his concubine in Gibeah. They spent the night in the
house of a hospitable old man. While they were eating their supper,
H E ' G O O D " B O O K A N D T H E M O R A L Z E I T G E I S T 2 4 1
the men of the city came and beat on the door, demanding that the
old man should hand over his male guest 'so that we may know
him'. In almost exactly the same words as Lot, the old man said:
'Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good
unto you; but unto this man do not so vile a thing' (Judges 19:
23-4). Again, the misogynistic ethos comes through, loud and
clear. I find the phrase 'humble ye them' particularly chilling. Enjoy yourselves by humiliating and raping my daughter and this priest's concubine, but show a proper respect for my guest who is, after all, male. In spite of the similarity between the two stories, the denouement was less happy for the Levite's concubine than for Lot's daughters.The Levite handed her over to the mob, who gang-raped her all night: 'They knew her and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came
the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door
of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light' (Judges 19:
25-6). In the morning, the Levite found his concubine lying
prostrate on the doorstep and said - with what we today might see
as callous abruptness - 'Up, and let us be going.' But she didn't
move. She was dead. So he 'took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces,and sent her into all the coasts of Israel'. Yes, you read correctly. Look it up in Judges 19: 29.
cont...
Such unpleasant episodes in Abraham's story are mere
peccadilloes compared with the infamous tale of the sacrificing of
his son Isaac (Muslim scripture tells the same story about
Abraham's other son, Ishmael). God ordered Abraham to make a
burnt offering of his longed-for son. Abraham built an altar, put
firewood upon it, and trussed Isaac up on top of the wood. His
murdering knife was already in his hand when an angel
dramatically intervened with the news of a last-minute change of
plan: God was only joking after all, 'tempting' Abraham, and testing his faith. A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma. By the standards of modern morality, this disgraceful story is an example of child abuse.....
Dis-honorable mention:
Genocide at jericho by joshua under gods direction.
+6,000,000,000 souls world wide who have been sent to hell throughout history for not excepting jesus christ as their lord and savior. many of which (including children) probably have never even heard of jesus.
There are many other examples, just open your bible at apply it to modern morality.
I understand there are far more examples of good morality in the the bible then bad, but that is not the point. The point is that we pick and choose which examples to follow. And what are are those choices based on? Clearly our moral compass comes from somewhere other than scripture.
Dear Mr. Hippie Conservative,
You suck.
Signed,
Bill Maher
P.S. I'm plugging that really cool site, "The Unmitigated Word."
OK, on the real: If it is indeed true that Maher's antipathy of religion and its subscribers is based on 'lies his granny told him', there may be some potential learning tools here for parents.
Conceivably, there could be some serious ramifications stemming from parents consistently lying to their children - even about things as innocent as the identify of the real person putting gifts under the tree (if it actually WAS Santa, his VISA bill must've been off the hook). In a part of Descartes' Meditation for instance, he implicitly notes that if he forms a body of knowledge and perceptions based on certain beliefs, and those beliefs are false, then everything built upon those beliefs is false. I don't claim to be a philosophical cat, but I suspect Bill may have taken that idea and ran with it.
If what you think is true, parents can learn a lot about Bill and what not to tell their children.
Dear Rev,
Wow, As I said before I find those contradictions only mildly interesting. Also I never said those morals that I admire came from the bible. I said, "I like that they have a moral compass dictated by a group, not by their own individual wants and needs." It's an issue of individualistic morality vs. societal morality. The problem is that those morals derived for the individual almost always find themselves in conflict with what's best for society. Thanks for the well-researched info, that's exactly the case that Bill makes. But for me, Bill's morality (hanging with porn stars and doing whatever fulfills his desires) vs. people that run missions and help the poor is no contest, no matter the contradictions of their beliefs.
Dear Bill Maher,
While I agree with you that the "The Unmitigated Word." is a great site, I think "You Suck" might have been a little harsh assessment of my efforts. But considering my own assessment of your deep seated childhood issues...your forgiven.
Hey Dre,
Well, I think the real problem with the "lie" that comes with Santa and the whole myth is in how parents explain why they did it. I told my kids that it was to show them a selfless act; giving without taking the credit. Besides, it was a fun fantasy that made their childhood more exciting. I can definately see the dangers , but I can also see it as a good learning tool. I would leave it up to individual parents to decide if there is a benefit. Obviously, if what I suspect about Bill is true, it would have been better to skip it.
HipCon, you know "Bill Maher" was just me being an ass, right?
To your points:
"I told my kids that it was to show them a selfless act; giving without taking the credit."
No argument there. Like you, I've always found a certain positive value in white lies. Often in the case of telling innocent lies, we justify the practice by convincing ourselves that it somehow offers a benefit to the person being lied to. But I also strongly suspect that any lie - regardless of innocence or intent - runs the risk of destroying relationships of trust.
I think you lucked out by having children who understood and appreciated why you did what you did. But for the children too bitter and resentful to understand that, the Bill Mahers of the world are created.
For me and my house, it is not a risk worth taking.
Hey Dre,
That was YOU! Crap! The next thing your going to tell me is God didn't really respond to me a few posts ago. Man, that ruined my day. Anyway, I get where your coming from, but as a guy who has been in a 30+ year relationship with one woman, I can tell you lying can be an essential ingredient. The difference is simple. If your lying is to protect yourself or to cover-up something you've done, your on a bad path. If your lying is to spare someone else's feelings or to brighten someone's day-is it really a bad thing? Like a lot of crimes (and I do think lying is always a crime), intent is the main thing that separates it from being a good or a bad act. Like righteous indignation, it's a gamble with your morality.
Hip Con, I thought "Bill Maher's" plug to my site was a dead giveaway. But then I saw you responding to this phatom menance with what appeared to be sincerity. Credulousness, thy name is The Hippie Conservative. Sheesh.
Now, to the real point of this post. Imagine the following script being played out:
Mrs. HipCon: HipCon, how does this dress look?
Shows HipCon a hideous looking dress
HipCon: It looks fine, honey.
Mrs. HipCon proceeds in wearing said hideous dress. Parades around to some of her closet friends.
Friend #1: OMG! Where did you find such a hideous dress?!
Mrs. HipCon: Well, HipCon said it looked fine.
Friend #2: I hate to break it to you girl. But your man lied to you. That dress is horrible!
Irrate by the revelation, Mrs. HipCon goes home, starts a heated argument with our intrepid hero, the Hippie Conservative, makes him sleep on the couch for a month, divorces him, and takes half of everything he owns. Fade to black
This story is a tragic (and maybe a little hyperbolic) reminder of what happens when your innocent lie is brought to light. What makes this situation potentially dangerous is when somebody else is the one who brings the truth to the light. Not only does the deceived have to face the reality of finding out the truth, but they are usually embarrased once they discovered they've been lied to. If a parent convinced their child of the existence of Santa Claus, only to get the real story from his mean, brutally honest, and unrelenting peers, the damage could be irreparable.
LOL,
Our hero doesn't like your story one little bit Mr. "I Think I'll Pretend To Be Bill Maher and Then Chastize THC for Lying."
When you've been married for 30 years we'll talk again. (I'll still be around since I'm planning on living to be at least 90.)
Thanks for the laugh!
I still maintain that a religious persons morality has nothing to do with religion. I feel that the Christian "group" morality as you see it is just an illusion. The reality is that the average person has an internal desire to do good. The illusion is created by a this misleading correlation. "The majority of people are good, also the majority of people are religious, therefore the religion is the source of the majorities morality."
This correlation is not accurate as i wil try to demonstrate. We know that religion is based on scripture, but morality is not based on scripture, as i have already shown in the previous comments, in modern times we pick and choose what scripture to follow as moral examples. The majority knows what scripture to follow because we have an internal sense of morality. The "moral compass dictated by a group" is really the moral compass dictated by human nature.
The moral compass that you are fond of is found in all humanity with, the only variations are due to the different levels of moral evolution that every society goes through. Eventually all societies will reach similar conclusions about moral behavior, only it might be at different points in time. (For example slavery, womens rights.)
With regard to the individualist vs. Group.
An individual can manipulate the masses no matter the religious (or non-religious) affiliation. I would argue that history shows evidence of both groups (religious and non) at some point being led in an immoral direction by a persuasive individual.
Why are all people susceptible to and individual leading them astray, if most all people have a similar moral compass?
As i've said before morality has nothing to do with religion, however it has everything all of humanity having the same brain hardware that has evolved through hundreds of thousands of years of altruistic behavior. It is obvious that protecting our group or tribe or family is geneticaly benefitial. Therefore natural selection favors altruistic behavior in humans. Natural selection also favors a desire to follow someone whom we perceive is more intellegent than ourself. This is benefitial to the group as well, preserving ones genetics by trusting that a more intelligent human will lead us a safer direction than could be obtained by following our perceived lesser intelligence.
Sometimes that leader is an individualist who will lead the group in an immoral direction.
Eventually and inevitably, our altruistic hardware trumps our desire to follow and we "re-group" in a positive direction. All individuals who go against our instictive altruistic behaviour will eventually be disregarded. Again religion cannot be credited for that fact.
Your statement "I like that they have a moral compass dictated by a group." is not pertaining to religion, and really means "I like that most people have a moral compass dictated by thousands of years of evolution."
If religion can be credited with anything it is the amazing ability to organize the masses. Most times the organization is for good, like charities and missions, but on occation for bad, like the bible quotes i posted.
Sorry for posting an essay, but i love this subject.
Bah. Every movie I give you, you seem to hate, & now write negative blogs about. You're cut-off. ;P
-n
Hey Rev.
Sigh, I really tire so easily of the Atheist mantra, but here goes. How about you giving me some great examples of Atheistic accomplishments instead of just trashing religion or diminishing it as you proponents of secularism are so prone to do. Also, your argument is littered with assumptions.
For example;
"The reality is that the average person has an internal desire to do good."
I would love to hear how you would prove that. The more anonimous people get the worse they act. (I.E. the internet, on the highway) they only control themselves through fear of public scorn or fear of prosecution. Internal desire to do good? I don't see it.
And;
"The moral compass that you are fond of is found in all humanity with, the only variations are due to the different levels of moral evolution that every society goes through."
This doesn't explain civilized populations that erupt into chaos at the first signs of trouble. You assume that people naturally act in an "altuistic" way However, at the first sign of collapse of a regulatory government, people revert to their natural instinct of self preservation. A natural moral compass? Read up a little on the collapse of Yugoslavia or Russia.
Your entitled to your opinion as much as any religious person and I will defend to my death your right to express that opinion. However, I have a suggestion. Instead of spending all your time diminishing religion, how about devoting your time to the wonderful aspects of Atheism. I have had this argument with atheists many times on this site and it is always the same. Contradictions of morality within churches, immoral acts by religious people all through time, hypocracy by religious groups, diminishing of the achievements by religions. Do us all a favor and write a great piece on all the accomplishments by Atheists (without a list of why that's inpossible to acheive in a world run by religion.) It always attack, attack. There are times when it's hard to tell the rhetoric from atheists from the arguments by other groups that attack blacks, or homosexuals. Want to win me over? Prove to me that Atheism has more positive results than religion...in the REAL world. Thanks for your comments, I always like the other side. It's just that I get so tired of saying the same thing over and over on this topic. Why not just be happy with your beliefs (or lack of) and stop prophetizing on behalf of secularism or atheism?
@Rev,
P.S. Your obviously a very bright guy, so I had to ask myself this question and now I pose it to you; Why use your gift to offer shelter (intentionally or not) to people that are acting badly? You have the ability to self regulate but most people do not. By winning arguments against those that have a morality that will protect them from sef-destructive behavior (I.E. religion), you are opening those same people up to that behavior. Also, your stand is to win the argument against the moral crusaders, I get that, but do you not understand that by persuading people away from religion you will rob a great deal of them from comfort? Giving shelter to the immoral, while stealing comfort from the lost doesn't seem like a good venue for someone of your intelligence and virtue. Just a thought.
Hey Nic,
But I love getting those flicks! It's great fodder for my blog. I never said I hated any of them. I always thought you gave them to me so that I could see the other side (and sometimes I do) It's just my nature to look for things that other people wouldn't normally notice, like Michael Moore praising France's Health Care System when they killed 14,000+ elderly people in 1 week. Don't cut me off! I'll even watch Juno for you! Christ! I even voted for that black guy for President like you said I should! Com'on, just a couple more Liberal films. I didn't even pan on "W". (yet)
hey H.c,
As requested i will offer some examples of atheistic accomplishments. I will try to answer your questions, under the assumption that what you meant was: accomplishments that can be directly attributed to not-believing in supernatural entities.
Lets start with all of science: I would like to remind you that everything unexplained was once attributed to God. Learning that hurricans, volcanoes and earthquakes are not the result of Gods wrath and truly have natural causes, has allowed humans to make very accurate predictions about the "how and when", which I'm sure has chalked up a few saved lives. Then of course there is all of modern medicine. I would like to remind you again, that for thousands of years demons or angry gods made people ill, not viruses. Prior to medicine only religious rituals could aid the ill.
I'm sure you could argue "hey many of the people who made these scientific discoveries were religious." True, yet despite whatever beliefs they held, they took an atheistic approach for solving problems, or rather a scientific approach that does accept the supernatural as a plausible hypothesis. I feel its safe to say that all breakthough advances in science would be left in the dust if mankind had persist down the religious path and clung to theistic hypothesis to explain our world. In matters of science, atheistic accomplishments are the only accomplishments. I'm not in the business of counting up what has contributed the most positive results to the REAL world. But i will say that atheism has done its fair share through science.
Today the domain of the supernatural clings only to morality and creation. Why am i so radical to try and put a natural hypothesis on morality? This concept has been the focus of all my replies. I did not attack, attack, i tried to explain, explain. I do not feel i'm diminishing anything. Is the greatness of the universe diminished because we are not placed by god at the center? Absolutely not. Nor do i think that religious people are diminished morally because they have the same evolutionary hardware that the non-religious have.
If scripture = religion and religion = morality, Then scripture = morality. However we know this is not true. Scripture has remained the same for several hundred years, what is concidered to be moral behaviour changes every couple decades. Again scripture is fixed position, morality advances and shifts. It is my opinion that there must be a natural explaination. The altruistic evolution concept is the only logical solution that i've heard so far. Of course this means humans have an "internal desire to do good", which you claim to be "littered with assumptions". So i will address those problems, and hopefully show that they are not assumptions at all.
"...The average person has a desire to do good."
Good people are everywhere, i think thats obvious.I'll try to make it more obvious to you as well. Humans created democracy as a fair means to govern, so that everyone could voice their opinions on laws, if we aren't internally good, should we be regressing morally? That is not the case though, as i mentioned in the previous comments, slavery and womens rights are prime examples of our upward trend in morality. Once more i must point out that this upward moral trend, if not resulting from the external influence of scripture must be internal by default.
You point out anonymity. You are trying to show that we only control ourselves for fear of prosecution or public scorn. Unfortunatly for your position, both "Reasons to behave" only show the internal good of man. Remember who the prosecutors are H.C. and who put them in charge,(people did, not god)and why we put them in charge (To suppress immoral behaviour) and who wrote the laws by which they prosecute, (people with a desire to do good) and who voted on those laws (people with a desire to supress immoral behavior), in a democracy, and who established the democracy. (people with a desire to have a good society).
Now on to public scorn: I Must ask you: why Should the immoral be afriad of publics opinion, if the pulic wasn't mostly good. Seems obvious to me, and i think you know the answer too.
AS far a the altruistic evolution morality is concerned, anonymity is a new option in life experiences, and altruistic evolution probably does not have the "hardware" to deal with this. And i do not think this is a hole in the theory. But if it becomes such a great problem, im sure our altruistic nature will take over and try to prevent it somehow.
I would also like to point out that some of your anonymis harrasers are probably religious, unless you feel only atheist are flippin' the bird or name-calling online, which i doubt.
Anonymity does more damage to the religious moral concept than the altruistic evolution. Because no one is anonymis to God. Religion should be a greater deterant, but its not, as you pointed out unintentionally by stating that "civilized populations erupt into chaos at the first signs of trouble."
The collapse of Yugo and Russia, Where was the religious moral compass then? Trumped by self-preservation? How could it be that religion and holy judgment didn't stop these civilized populations from going crazy? What ever morality is dictated by: a group or religion or nature, its only second priority to self-preservation. Yet i doubt that altruism was totally tossed out. I'm willing to bet that no one intentionally abandoned their own children, certainly did rob their children. Probably most killed to protect their families. IT is also possible that if someone stole, it was to feed their families.
All of this yugo and russia stuff demonstrates the hierarchy of needs. Plain and simple. Self-preservation makes up the 1st level of needs, the foundation. (with some altruism for my genetic desendants). Altruism toward strangers only occures after me and my family have our physiological needs met. And so on and so on. When one priority of needs is met, we try to meet the next level filled with less priority needs. All the way up until people start worring about stupid irrelevant stuff like "is my dog depressed" or "is my cat happy."
I'll won't comment again on this subject, i appreciate that you've allowed this debate to go on here. The last word is yours. I will not comment on the subject of religious comfort, maybe i'll write a post on it, cuz thats a whole 'nother can 'o worms.
Hey Rev,
First off, I would like to give you credit for pointing out the pluses (In your POV)of atheistic thought as opposed to just the faults of Christian doctrine. For that, I give you kudos. (I couldn't help but notice, however, that you, like a lot of people defending atheism, seem to be focused on Christianity and not the other religions). Now, on to your points. I noticed that right off the bat you took my request to, "write a great piece on all the accomplishments by Atheists." and you decided to instead defend Atheistic thought. Not really what I requested.
As far as those accomplishments being, "all of science". I do not find science and religion to be mutally exclusive (although you would get a lot of support in my University). You assume that religion would prevent (or has prevented) a scientist from being objective enough to consider that his religion could be wrong. But what true scientist would discard a theory he can not prove to be impossible? Remember, Secular scientists fought hard to keep the Big Bang Theory out of the classrooms because they dismissed it as religiously based. That's the science you want? No cloning from bone marrow because that's too close to the story of Adam and Eve? Plenty of great scientists are religious, in fact, the trend toward secular scientists is a recent trend. Second, you claim that you didn't attack, attack, all you did was "explain, explain." Pointing out the faults of a group (as you did in your first post) as proof of their immorality reeks of demogoguery. I could point out plenty of examples of that exact tact being used throughout history against Jews, blacks, and a host of other groups. In fact, those exact biblical quotes are used to create hatred toward Christians and Jews in Iran and a host of other fanatical Muslim regimes. On anonymity; Everything that you point out is the actions of people in the public domain, that's not exactly anonymous. All people act differently in the public or around their family. Haven't you noticed? Is this proof of their Altruism or only their desire to be seen publicly as "good"? On Yugo and Russia. You ask, "Where was the religious moral compass then?" My answer; It was killed by the Atheistic nature of Communism. While it's true that some communistic regimes allow you to be religious as long as you keep it to yourself, religion is so suppressed that it barely exists at all. In all forms of Communism, it is the government that becomes the God.
In conclusion, Rev. I noticed that you avoided my question as to why you would use your obvious intellect to give support to something that gives very little to society at the cost of comfort for those who need it most. I have, in my life, seen many people use religion to get them through the worst life has to offer. I've never seen Atheism provide anything close. I'm sure you see yourself as providing truth, but truth has very little value to me when it hurts without helping. There is always, in my POV, a battle between good and evil. It is up to each of us to decide which is which and where we stand. Thank you for a great discussion done with class and mutual respect. The most important lesson here is that there is nothing to fear from two points of view as long as each allows the other to exist and be heard.
Post a Comment