http://videosift.com/video/Maher-Atheism-is-NOT-a-religion

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:22 - length declared by PlayhousePals.

Bill O'Reilly agrees that "Christianity is not a religion" has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

The War On Christmas has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Bill O'Reilly agrees that "Christianity is not a religion" has been added as a related post - related requested by shagen454 on that post.

I wonder what O'Reilly would say if Silverman would've countered with "Islam is not a religion but philosophy" Not that there's anything wrong with xmas as a a word, it's just semantics.

In reply to this comment by A10anis:
Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..

I just kept the original title. It probably would be more accurate to call it "a very simplistic explanation that even theists can understand".

>> ^shuac:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shuac:
>> ^A10anis:
Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..

I think it might be considered ham-fisted to an atheist (of which Videosift is mostly comprised), who already understands the subtitles involved.

Sorry, your argument is a non-sequitur. I am an atheist and the video makes perfect sense to me!

Then you misunderstand what "ham-fisted" means.

What it means where you are from, I have no idea. Here in England ham-fisted means inept, clumsy, etc. I'm done...

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^shuac:
>> ^A10anis:
Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..

I think it might be considered ham-fisted to an atheist (of which Videosift is mostly comprised), who already understands the subtitles involved.

Sorry, your argument is a non-sequitur. I am an atheist and the video makes perfect sense to me!


Then you misunderstand what "ham-fisted" means.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^A10anis:
Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..

I think it might be considered ham-fisted to an atheist (of which Videosift is mostly comprised), who already understands the subtitles involved.


Sorry, your argument is a non-sequitur. I am an atheist and the video makes perfect sense to me!

>> ^A10anis:

Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..


I think it might be considered ham-fisted to an atheist (of which Videosift is mostly comprised), who already understands the subtitles involved.

lol,
Ya, I'm a crazy star wars fan and collector.
I'm feigning mock disassociation.

I have to agree though, there was nothing special about those Slave Leia clips - I saw those clips many years ago, even have them on an old "behind the scenes" VHS tape I have.

I think people cling to clips like those just for nostalgia's sake.

Growing up with Star Wars, I've been collecting SW stuff ever since. It's an ingrained part of my life. I'm not freaky crazy about it. You'd never know from meeting me but my friends know about the 500 or more Star Wars figures I have still in packages - (oh, and so much more - to my wife's dismay and constant face-palming)

It's not like religion for me or anything just a fun pastime/hobby


In reply to this comment by MonkeySpank:
I honestly can't tell if this was sarcasm or not...

In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
Ya, why are you guys all obsessed with Star Wars - Geez...
>> ^MonkeySpank:

Why is this footage important? Maybe I missed out on that whole Startwars thing. Seen the movies; I still don't get the obsession.

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

>> ^messenger:

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

"if you don't have a god"

once again, god and religion are being melded into one thing. God and religion are two separate things.

"does a creator exist?" That's one question. There could be a creator, or there may not be one. I'm an agnostic because I say "I don't know." The definition of atheism that I *repeatedly* see states "no, there is no creator" so by that metric, agnostics are NOT atheists

Assuming you do believe that there is a creator, that leads to the second question, "what do you think that creator wants you to do?" That's where religion comes into play. What if there is a creator, but that creator doesn't care what you do? or what if that creator wants you to find your own way instead of being dictated to by commandments and popes and priests. So now you have a creator..but no religion. Personally, I've never had any problem with the idea of a creator, but this notion that a creator wants you to worship it and constantly give thanks is pretty absurd. Why would a creator NEED worship? why would it want it's creation spending a large amount of time worshiping it and doing it's bidding? Why would a creator need minions? why would a creator NEED subservient subjects? People refer to "God's Army" What does a creator need of an army? It's ridiculous.

A creator is one question, religion is another. There could be a creator, but even if there is, most, if not all religions are demonstrably stupid and/or harmful.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.