Yes yes yes yes yes!!! I think this is the only time I have ever liked anything that Bill Maher has said. Atheist is an ugly word to me, too, but mostly because Atheists tend to be extremely self-satisfied and think they know everything. Also, the message of Jesus Christ gets lost very, very often among all of the bells and whistles of organized religion. Christians often act in a very un-Christ-like way.

I don't agree that we can't afford another faith-based administration, however, and I don't think that Maher really believes that, either. You can't blaim Bush's mistakes on his religion. All US presidents have been Christian. That's just Maher groping for another way to make Bush and religion ridiculous by associating one with the other. Does that mean that we can't afford Obama, because he at least claims to be pretty darn religious.

Bush was the first president to principally base his run for presidency around his Christian faith, bringing out masses of Evangelical Christians for the first time to vote in large distinct political blocks.

Social conservatism was a key factor of both wins in 2000 and 2004. It was also used as reasoning behind going to war in Iraq, claiming that 'God' told Bush to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and then on to trying to solve Israeli/Palestinian issues. How can you not remember the family issues thing overtaking the Iraq war as a topic during 2004.

Religion must not be part of government, its ridiculous that Americans need to connect on faith with their presidents.

Does no one but me remember that Democrats wanted to go to war, too? Congress voted on it. Supporters like Pelosi and Clinton come to mind.

Bush was the first? Are you kidding me? You've got to be kidding.

Besides, I seriously doubt that Bush's decisions really actually had anything to do with his faith. For one thing, Bush himself never claimed that God told him to go to war. And I repeat that Democrats wanted the same thing. Social conservatism ALWAYS plays a huge role in electing Republican presidents. Almost all politicians pretend the same thing to gain the support of Evangelicals. Every presidential candidate caters to the religious crowd. Clinton did it. Do you remember the huge media event that Clinton made of going to church? Obama did it. Surely you remember. But Republican candidates do tend to make a slightly bigger deal of religion for obvious reasons. It's a cheap political move.

You are misconstruing what I said. You said "Bush and religion ridiculous by associating one with the other". That's why I posted my response.

Now you are saying that the democrats were for the war as well, however you don't acknowledge the fact that information has been shown to be cherry picked to develop a credible case for war and make Iraq seem like an imminent threat to America and the western world.

Then presented using some of the most respected individuals to validate the case for War, Colin Powell's UN address comes to mind. The Downing street memo showed that: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Your later point simply benefits mine only you seem to spread the blame on all presidential candidates while not looking at the way the Bush run for Presidency was actively catered and supported by evangelicals, Jerry Falwell comes to mind. Bush's own constant mention of faith rescuing him from alcoholism, his meddling in the Terry Schiavo case.

No other president in our time has so constantly referred to a personal relationship with God in guiding his policy as Bush has. Essentially you are agreeing that politics and religion have no business being affiliated, as even a president so vehemently supported by Christians, endorsed by its religious leaders and in a personal relationship with God has proved to be an outright disaster.

I see religion and government being linked as an extremely primitive methodology.

Okay, you're right. Absolutely right. And I agree with you that religion and politics should not mix. But I still think that it was silly for Maher to mention that we could not "afford another faith-based administration," as if religion itself is what ruins administrations. Bush's mistakes should not be blamed on his faith, but on Bush himself. Don't let him hide behind his religion. And saying that we can't afford it is silly, as if we haven't been "affording" religious Presidents who bring their own values into the White House for the last 220 years.

"Atheists tend to be extremely self-satisfied and think they know everything."

they're correct, that's why.

When politicians take their religions seriously rather than pay political lip-service to it, that is the problem.
You can bring your own values to the presidency, but when your actual decisions are based on faith, as opposed to any other source (science, diplomacy, pragmatism, a reasoned debate with your cabinet members, the will of the governed), we get the last 8 years.
I blame faith specifically, yes I do. Or, if you like, I blame Bush for taking his faith so seriously.

It's frustrating how people keep using the word "atheist" wrong. Yes there are extreme atheists who claim that there is no god at all and consciousness ends at death, but many atheists know that is just as absurd a claim as the religions we oppose. Atheism is just the assertion that there is no proof that any particular god exists, and lots of evidence that religious texts and practices are deeply flawed.

Most atheists that I know are of the belief that: "We don't know if a god exists, and it's ok that we don't know."

Many people call that "agnostic", which is ok, but not quite accurate. The word comes from "against gnosis", or the intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths. All religions based on "faith", or believing that which cannot be proved, are in that sense gnostic.

Agnosticism is actually a stronger claim than atheism. The agnostic claim is that there absolutely cannot be knowledge of god. Since god would be spiritual, and we are material, we cannot have knowledge of anything like that.

Atheism just says we don't believe in any particular god because we don't have any knowledge yet.

So in summary, if you are agnostic, you are an atheist. If you are "not religious", you are an atheist. If you were "raised Catholic but haven't gone to church in years", you are probably an atheist. Lets face it, if you believed in the teachings of a church, wouldn't you be going all the time, eager to make sure you protect your eternal soul from damnation?

People just use "agnostic" because of the stigma attached to the word atheist. Get over it already.

Resisting the word atheist sounds like a good idea. I did that for a long time. It's good to be accurate when you talk. If you haven't proved that god doesn't exist, maybe you shouldn't call yourself an atheist, right? Maybe rationalist is a better word, since I acknowledge there exists a possibility that a god can exist. I just haven't seen any evidence or any reason to start believing.

But then I think about religions people. They can call themselves, Catholics, Muslims, Hindu, Wiccans. The majority of them can't have proven it to be true, since they all contradict. They don't have any special information I don't have. If they can call themselves these names, why can't I call myself an atheist?

Then I think about things like fairies. Just because someone makes the claim that fairies exist, do I have to stay agnostic about fairies? Isn't it reasonable to actively believe they don't exist? Even though there has to exist a small possibility than they can exist?

So I think I'm just going to call myself an atheist. If anyone is an atheist, it's someone like me, right?

While I'm an agnostic, I'm not convinced that America, as it is now, should be free of religion, organized or not. The country is very capitalist, and I think religion serves as a major check against the excesses of capitalism. I think there's a common belief amongst left-wing athiests in America that if religion could be defeated, left-wing ideals will suddenly become very popular, society would become more democratic. I think the opposite would be true. Left-wing ideals of equality would be quickly crushed by the inherently pro-inequality aspects of capitalism.

An atheist is someone without theology. So, an Atheist really just has no religion... And that's the bucket I belong in...

>> ^jerryku:
While I'm an agnostic, I'm not convinced that America, as it is now, should be free of religion, organized or not. The country is very capitalist, and I think religion serves as a major check against the excesses of capitalism. I think there's a common belief amongst left-wing athiests in America that if religion could be defeated, left-wing ideals will suddenly become very popular, society would become more democratic. I think the opposite would be true. Left-wing ideals of equality would be quickly crushed by the inherently pro-inequality aspects of capitalism.


Religions are inherently capitalistic in the modern, western world. If people don't believe, they don't give money. If they don't give money, the religion dies.

Capitalism, as a concept, is far more pro-equality than religion. Anyone with money can participate on an equal basis, and money is distributed to all according to the value of their productivity. Of course that doesn't quite work in practice, but if people mature enough to not be hoodwinked by religion, they are, in my opinion, less likely to be hoodwinked by unethical corporations.

Keep in mind that Wal-Mart, one of the biggest corporations on the planet, is very religious in nature, and it is constantly under attack for the poor treatment of its employees. I really can't think of a way that religion acts as a check against corporate excesses.

capitalism is pro equality?

wow that's news to me.