The First unbaptism...

NUTS!

Thanks, BRAVA. This video is hilarious! I had never seen it before, but it gave me some ~giggles~.
How on earth did he sit there being so stoic while asking those questions?
lmao @ "flex it", "second day stubble", and "Sister Fister".

Yeah, spent an hour debating a Benadictine monk at a local bar last night, with him admiting at the end that I knew his religion better then most who claim to follow it, and several who are sanctioned to preach it.

Faith is "Making a virtue of not thinking" is my favorite message from that segment.

Me too. Not sure what we do. I'd think we'd have to "un-evolve" or something.

The answer is Secular humanism, my friend!

Thanks for your suggestion. I'm aware of Secular humanism and it's quite interesting. Seems a tad too "organizational" for me, though. Guess I'm too independent minded.

If you are an athiest the you didnt get baptized. You just got wet.

Thank you for that refreshing perspective!!

"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

That makes practically any organization a religion, that definition is ridiculous. The NFL is a religion now apparently.

"Their beliefs would be "there is no 'God'"

The rejection of someone else's belief is not a belief. I don't have "unbelief." That's retarded.

"and their practices would be trying to convince people that a story Darwin stole from his grandfather, who had stole from various cultures is about all one needs to disprove any form of creation...."

You mean the theory of evolution? Also known as basic biology that no one in their right mind disagrees with?

In fact, most people who believe in evolution are Christians and most Christians believe in evolution. How do you explain that?

Hate on Maher if you want, but calling atheism a religion is just the height of semantic stupidity.

It's a position. Or, more accurately, a rejection of a popular idea. It can't be a religion any more than I could be a fan of not-sports or a collector of non-existent things.

"the show sucks" is a belief.You can't argue that it wasn't entertainment, as I described!

Or, to put another way, atheism is one of many results of one's beliefs, NOT the beliefs themselves which, only relative to theism, make you technically an atheist.

Relative to those who believe in unicorns, I'm an a-unicornist. I'm also, technically, an a-leprechaunist, a-Thorist, a-Isisist (hee hee), a-Santa Clausist, a-Easter Bunnyist, a-Bigfootist, a-Nessyist, a-Chupacabrist and on and on. None of those labels tell you anything about what I DO believe that causes me to reject them all. They are terms relative only to beliefs not my own. They are not genuinely descriptive of me.

One could run down a very long and similar list with a theist too. Do those labels tell you anything about what they DO believe?

No. I wonder how they'd feel if I told them in every conversation their a-Unicornism is a religion.

Jan, I don't know if that was his intent, either.
But, I can appreciate that the "words of Christ" are important to you. Actually, as a former-believer, many of them are *still* important to me, too.
IMO, I think he was emphasizing "lack of faith" in atheists and I didn't see this video as him "trying to pushing atheism", but I also realize that this subject to interpretation, which may be be different for everyone.
I also think he was pointing out some of the ridiculous rituals that can come with religion. (As a former Catholic, I remember it being very *ritualistic*.)
I do think it's great you spoke your mind about how he made you feel. I don't support Mitt Romney either, but I always support the freedom for everyone to speak their minds, at all times.

I disagree that this proves Jan was trying to push her beliefs on here, at all. I see her comment as how she was *personally* affected by Bill's video in her own life, and she spoke out, accordingly.
fwiw, I didn't feel like Jan was pushing anything; just the same way, I didn't feel Bill was trying to push anything in this video, either.
But, if that's the way it made you feel, then I respect that those are your feelings, too.
If it was possible, I would love the opportunity to read the thoughts of all of the "great many people he offended". Mostly, because I always think it's important to hear both (all) sides of a story.

Appreciated. I wouldn't even have minded so much had it not had the tone of a blanket generalization and I don't really place much credence in ritualism in that respect either. But I do have great respect and faith in the words of Christ and it just seems some are so cavalier about generalizing on that score and he does it frequently, which comes off as arrogant. Of course, that is his right as well. Fortunately it is then my prerogative to not listen to him about it anymore if I so choose.Thanks for understanding and being so civil about my comment.

"What happened to being non-judgemental, forgiving, accepting, and considerate of other people"

Well if he had been I wouldn't have felt the need to respond. And actually, I think I was very kind in expressing myself compared to some other comments I've seen. As far as voting down, my comment was voted down twice in a minute. That wasn't you? I really don't vote down much at all here. But if it matters that much to you I'll vote your "facepalm" up. Thanks for your tolerance.

"but I can't buy that gnostic christian"

Do you even know about it? Of course not. Just judge without even trying to understand. How scientific. Oh, and nice touch with the polar bear. Beautiful animals. I actually report about the science of global warming affecting them in the hopes we can save ourselves and other species in time. Shake your head at that.

Oh you were quite polite by comparison to many, agreed. But my point was YOU were not being non-judgemental, forgiving, or accepting of another. BTW I mostly agree with you about his arrogance and generalizations, but then again he is an entertainer who makes his living through being controversial. You are more then free to take offense to his behavior, but when you lecture(a tool of influence) someone on thier own behavior while claiming to not push your beliefs is simply false.

--edit-- two downvotes in a minute? Not me as I can only vote once, which I did downvote because of my disagreement with the body and premises of your text.

--2nd edit-- I have noticed a trend on here of several of us (the vocal and stalwart in their beliefs) seemingly being stalked by those who disagree with us just to downvote everything we post. You M'Lady are nothing if not vocal and stalwart in what you believe...

But I never claimed I was being non-judgmental did I? It's actions vs. words... --shrugs-- And I did say feel free to downvote me... --walks away shaking his head--

My boyfriend is Jewish. He knows all of the jokes and the prejudices. I work with a devout Morman who has also experienced all of the jokes and prejudices.
Both of them are good people who can only shake their head at the ignorance of some people, but both of them can't help but laugh at a good funny, because niether of them take anything personal...no matter the blanket statements by some.

Not saying you are wrong, just voicing another way to look at things.

"I have noticed a trend on here of several of us (the vocal and stalwart in their beliefs) seemingly being stalked by those who disagree with us just to downvote everything we post."

I'm glad you brought this up, because I've noticed it, too. Especially, since I'm also one of the targets for being constantly down-voted on many of my comments. Heck! I've even been down-voted for saying "thank you", which is so *ridiculously* juvenile.

Even though I do feel this is an unfortunate situation on this site for all members, I will emphasize right here and now: It doesn't phase me one bit to be down-voted; NOT one bit, because I will always express *exactly* what I think in any comment I post, and I find the down-voting too distractive in many dialogues. But, I also realize the up/down-voting is probably here to stay (for now).

--applauds-- Hear hear!

@JanforGore- If Bill just lost you as a viewer last night, you must not watch him very much. His thoughts are probably identical to mine when it comes to religion, so please allow me to respond. First, I don't know anyone who goes around pushing Atheism. At the most, we may have a friendly debate. I am pretty sure religious people win the prize for pushing beliefs, to say the least. And if his words offended you, good. Great. Do you know how offensive it is and has been to Atheists to have to listen and cater to the equivalent of fairy tales and the people who believe them for entire duration of our life? There are a lot of you and you are everywhere. We do know you very, very VERY well. Frankly, I find it utterly amazing how many people still believe in God (or think they do) despite the advancements in technology and science in the last 150 years. We no longer need stories written a long time ago to explain things we don't understand. We have scientific proof. Evidence. Fact. Reasoning. I don't know what Gnostic Christians believe in (they are all equally ridiculous to me) but if you consider yourself a Christian, then you are a Christian. Most Atheist would agree there is not a lot of difference between religions peoples. Different religions simply follow the parts that suits them. I don't understand all of the continued selective denial of facts by the religious and I am tired of trying. Thankfully, science has some very interesting hypothesis for that, too.

The Christian tenet "Judge not lest ye be judged" is a call - no, a demand - to turn off one's mind. There are many who cannot and will not live that way. That tenet advances the notion that freedom to believe as you wish necessarily means you MUST be free from question, free from skepticism, free from critique, free from competing beliefs, free from the limits of reality - and the consequences of testing those limits.

Sure, believe as you wish, but those other freedoms aren't a right - never have been, never will be. It is a plea that other human beings live in your insanity.

You have no right.

Judge and prepare to be judged. That's the tenet of the active and responsible mind.

P.S. - Expressing one's beliefs isn't the same as pushing your beliefs on others. Pushing my atheism on you would be to come to your home and remove all of the religious paraphenalia or telling you to hide the cross you wear around your neck at work or otherwise in public. Pushing your beliefs on me would be coming into my home and adding unwanted religous paraphenalia or demanding I wear a cross around my own neck. Simply stating what you think and feel in a public forum is precisely what it's there for. As it happens, it's Bill Maher's show. He can say what he likes. You can watch it or not watch. You have choice. Pushing it on you means you have no choice at all.

Similar to the "In God We Trust" on public monies.

Understood, but all of us see things differently. And have no fear, I will not express myself on this again as this is obviously no longer a place where diverse views and opinions expressed sincerely are welcomed as they once were.

Indeed, being down-voted isn't a "sky is falling" situation by any stretch of one's imagination, and neither is a vote-up some declaration you are the next best thing to Ghandi.

It's a public forum. That's all. Keeping things in perspective helps. If a word hurts you or heals you, you should remember always it isn't the word doing it but rather your own mind. YOU control what power words have over you - not those who use them.

The words others use speak far more to who THEY are than to who YOU are. It is your reaction to them that speaks of you and only that. Your reaction is not about them.

She wasn't pushing her beliefs on how people should act, she was articulating how she was offended and giving a full context as too why she was offended and why she felt disrespected, if asking to be tolerated is pushing a belief, than everybody who is against gay rights is correct aren't they? People aren't emotional punching bags and you can't criticize her for putting her hand up to block bill mahers punches.

Bill maher was pushing his beliefs because he is a anti-religious anti-theist and as such his ridicule of religion is in effect pushing his beliefs, if your belief is to be against tenets of a belief system than taking any action in furtherance of that is pushing your beliefs, under the tenets of the mormon belief the posthumous baptism is a legitimate religious act performed by his own children. Its one thing to disagree or even think it is ridiculous but in this context bill maher placed himself in a superior moral position over Mr Davies children and mocked their beliefs and unbaptized the man mockingly on national television. In that context it his mocking, joking and ridicule are actions that influence the public to not respect or tolerate the legitimacy of his family's rights under their belief and openly disrespected them. This fundamentalist mentality toward intolerance is a tenet of anti-religious secularists that may not necessarily apply to other atheists however because these people are the loudest voices in secular movements today they are in effect redefining the word "atheist" meaning in the public psyche to be one in the same with intolerant anti-religious anti-theistic fundamentalism.

I think you bring up some valid points about Bill Maher, however, people can only be *pushed* into his beliefs if they allow themselves to be "pushed".

No one forces anyone to watch Bill Maher.

Thank you, Naumadd. Great comment!
No, the "sky isn't falling" from down-votes, but it certainly seems to affect certain others that way.

That's unfortunate, Jan. Sorry to hear that.

I think *everyone* should always have the ability to express themselves, without feeling snuffed out or uncomfortable about expressing their own views. But, I understand that this may be something you have to do for yourself.

In which case she goes on to state her feelings of being disrespectful as opposed to conducting an assault on an individual person. Look you have your oppinion and I have mine, I have yet to read a point that would cause my re-evaluation to shift into that direction.

True but he is a contributor to the environment of society as a influencial entertainer which means his words carry weight and ripple effect through out society and his method of carrying out his feelings will be replicated by others and this idea you put forth that someone does not have to watch bill maher assumes that a viewer watching bill maher is going to expect him to carry out such actions and you would first have to be familiar with him before you can anticipate that a person can watch episodes of bill mahers show that barely touches on religion at all. So basically in order to know bill maher is going to slander your beliefs on his show you are more than likely have to put your hand on the hot maher stove and be burned before you know its a mistake you should not make again.

".--edit-- two downvotes in a minute? Not me as I can only vote once, which I did downvote because of my disagreement with the body and premises of your text."

Then I guess you have nothing to fall back on regarding me based on your own judgemental behavior here. And if you don't want a lecture about how you (in general) live don't lecture me. I'm sorry if my desire to express myself to Mr. Maher bothered you so. I'm fairly sure it won't bother him half as much.

Again voted down by someone who probably didn't even watch it. The tolerance here is overwhelming. Afraid someone will actually watch it and see how wrong they are about Christians as a whole? Talk about "living in the bubble." And here I thought Current was a site where people respected other views and wanted to discover new things. Such fear.

Imagine that. Extremist atheists speaking for all atheists (or thinking they do) just as extremist Christians/Muslims/Jews have taken over the conversation regarding faith.

With all due respect, I just have to ask; who are you really talking to here?

Because you certainly don't believe Bill Mahar will stop by and read your defense for organized superstition, much less give a hoot if he loses you as a viewer. You're not his target audience, clearly.

Religion on its own....deserves Zero respect. ZERO! The very phrase "....the words of Christ" has motivated more zealots to cause more pain and sufferring, than anything else in human history! Yet religious types continue to feel compelled to tell others what they believe.

Please consider evolving beyond superstition. That's a sound beginning, not hypocritical ancient literature.

I am, indeed, familiar with Bill Maher, and I agree with you that he's an entertainer, but "influential" is subjective. Once again, he only *influences* people who allow him to influence them in their own lives.

His words don't carry weight in my life, but I believe those who feel compelled to replicate his words are probably hungry to get a reaction out of others around them, when they see he has quite an "audience".

As far as your analogy about putting "your hand on the hot maher stove and be burned before you know it's a mistake, I think the old saying, "If one can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen..." says it perfectly; especially, because his humor is also subjective.

I realize that this video may have been funny to me, but not funny to you (or other viewers).

Well I don't want to be accused of "pushing" anything on anyone. Funny too, because on his own site where I posted my remark, not one "facepalm." At least I had the guts to express myself knowing I was more than likely in the minority regarding it. I mean, if those of us who truly love Christ and who aren't zealots don't speak out, how will the truth about that ever get out? How will we ever bridge the divide? Personally, I get weary of people who refuse to understand that you can be spiritual or even religious and still respect science and care about humanity because you see the entire picture. Anyway, thanks for your civility here.

"Please consider evolving beyond superstition"

Sheer arrogance.

I have knowledge and facts. I also have humanity. I also have reason. I don't need to be lectured to about what warped individuals have done over the centuries to defame the true meaning of what I espouse. They have made Christianity an abberration and people like myself have been too silent. You are wrong in your assessment of it in its totality. I have my faith and I keep it well and use it for betterment as many others do. But of course we never hear about those who do not use it as a shield. All we ever hear about are the extremists. Talking as if I don't understand all of that is the reason why I responded to Bill Maher in the first place. So he too would know we aren't all alike.

You're welcome. I always applaud anyone who stands up for themselves and expresses their views (no matter how controversial they may be), and I realize the world of blogging can be a bit "harsh" at times.

Sometimes, the most difficult thing is to not take it personally (some off-site blogs can be brutal; I know this one from personal experience), but I do respect that one's own beliefs are *very* personal.

I don't know if you had a chance to send that to Bill Maher *personally* via e-mail or if you only posted it here at Current, but if you get a response from him, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say. I'm very curious, but I also realize he may not respond, at all.

Maybe the truth will get out in a less abrasive manner, maybe (Even though you don't see it apparantly) some of us "atheists" actually stick up for you and your beliefs. I agree on your statement about religion vs spirituality and retaining a scientific grasp. Not many of us took umbrage to your statements of faith... its only been about the fashion in which you present them.

They have been so deeply indoctrinated they cant see the forest for the trees, they don't see the only thing that is different between there beliefs and religion is a semantical argument. They some how feel they have been given a license to trample on people and their beliefs because they are second class citizens who's feelings don't matter because in their view believers in anything that does not match their beliefs are lacking in intelligence and should be ridiculed for their misguidance. They will marginalize you until you snap and get angry and as soon as you do they will try to ridicule you for not acting like a christian and call you a hypocrite for being human, when you take this all in consideration you can see that they are much more dangerous than they understand.

At your service. ;)

lol! Make that 2 hats; one for the wolfess and one for the goddess.

I think this is Bill's best!

I just made my husband a wizard's hat out of fleece that has the solar system on it -- turned out way cool :-)!

my prayers is for you to get the hat
only requirement is to let me know when you get one

lmao! Glad to hear it.

Thank you, as well. I really enjoyed it.

You are very welcome. :) In a very depressing world, I do try to spread as much mirth and whimsy as possible.

That one is going on my wall. :)

YAY! And so agreed with this one.

Best comment I have seen on Current today.

ME TOO!

I'll try this again...I know most of the people on the left, but who is that on the right? I don't keep up on these things;))

Someone with a eff'd-up margarita?

Good as any...I suppose;))

If you can name at least 5 of those on the left (most likely the 5 farthest left in most people's case) you can call the one on the right what ever you want!

Ah...gee...now you challenge me!;)) I can easily name 4, and I know the faces of the rest, but their names escape me:(( I am shamed.....but I still don't know who the other one is, so hopefully that will redeem me;))???

thats better then a lot of people would do to be honest

Ha, so true..

Bless you. I only know who that ho is because my one very guilty pleasure is watching the Soup on E. Snooki is frequently featured because she is a train wreck. I have never seen an episode of the Jersey Shore.

Carl Sagan was agnostic. And you forgot Galileo, a devout Catholic (at least for a time.) And Sir Isaac Newton who translated the Bible. I guess they aren't as brilliant now.

I am not debating the religions of scientist, I was pointing out the disparigy between those in our country who want to learn, and those who want to watch ignorant drunkards spread thier private parts on bars and car hoods. --fyi ever scientest in that image held religious beliefs so stop projecting thoughts and intentions on myself an others.

Right, in a thread on atheism. BTW, Christopher Hitchens wasn't a scientist. I don't think Thomas Paine was either. The majority pictured there were atheists however. So don't wonder why someone would think that was the intention particularly in a thread discussing atheism posted by an atheist. That then isn't projecting.