I feel like this needs to be seen by those who feel a moral superiority because of their religion. They need to see how this woman (like many others) put herself in an uncomfortable, even dangerous position simply because she refused to lie because she is moral, not because she feared supernatural reprisal. To me, that makes her morally superior.

Define Supernatural. Metagnostic?? The UN-knowable?
Ever had yer third eye opened? What you suggest is as subjective as your certainty. What lady fucking gaga does is supernautural on levels you've probably never allowed perception to consider. Words are a motherfucker.

The supernatural Jesus of the Bible never existed — not even for one second.

IRS=Babylon=devil

the connection exists in the collective unconscious something smells a certain way in Denmark
certain people claim supernatural influence
some of us, simply scream asshole

It's interesting that you would mention DNA because there is more evidence there of intelligent design than anywhere else. Did you know that DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed? It has digital information storage and retrieval, optimization, redundancy, and error correction.

DNA is also a language, and it has an alphabet, a coding system, correct spelling, grammar, meaning and intended purpose. Because DNA can be both classified as a code and a language, both of which we know only come from minds, we can reasonably conclude that DNA was intelligently designed.

Here is a book you might enjoy on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Scientist-Incredible/dp/0890514615

"Also, the complete and total lack of any empirical evidence of a supernatural creator."

I would pose the question..how would you tell the difference between a Universe that was designed and one that wasn't? How would you know which one you were in?

The discovery of the DNA molecule and genetics in general.

Also, the complete and total lack of any empirical evidence of a supernatural creator.

Well, I guess we disagree. To me, the supernatural and magic are for those without the experience or intelligence to comprehend that they don't exist, or those that wish to live in a fantasy. To me, that mindset is infantile.
I feel that adding magic to a great historical story is like putting sugar on broccoli, it's done to make something good palatable to non-adults, but it ruins it for adults and destroys what was good about it in the first place. This is an adult story with adult themes and adult actions, it didn't need magic, dragons, or 'The One', and the additions only degrade and confuse the amazing facts.
Would you have liked to see a Muslim dragon guarding Osama in Dark Thirty? (I know, not a historically accurate film, I'm just making a point). Wouldn't you have found it out of place in a movie about our (recent) 'history'? How about if Lincoln had to fight a confederate dragon in Lincoln (not Lincoln vampire hunter)? I feel like that would have infantilized those stories, as it does to any factual story.

Yeah, at first glance it does look like a Zack Snyder film doesn't it. I would disagree that the presence of the supernatural automatically makes everything infantile though.

Wanted to rewatch the episode I best remember from childhood - about the guy with the rock, you know the one - but I couldn't remember his name. It turns out google is now so supernaturally efficient that if you seach for 'greek myth "guy with the rock"', the first result is Sisyphus' wikipedia entry.

Great flick. There's so few horror films that incorporate the American heartland; "American Gothic" if you will. Fargo wasn't necessarily a horror film, but it had its share of sinister moments. And while a little more supernatural, Pumpkinhead had that same feeling...an American horror mythos.

@hpqp The point is that there is no such thing as "plain old religious fanaticism" - it's always tied up in whatever economic and political circumstances are shaping the region and family and the person committing the act. Sure - religious people would like to think that their religion is separate from their worldly circumstances, but if you don't give credence to any supernatural dimension of religion, it also becomes impossible to separate religion from the other socio-cultural-economic-historic factors that also drive conflict.

I work regularly with Muslims who each are rich enough to buy my worldly belongings a couple of times over, and violence is the farthest thing from their minds. Exploiting migrant workers and suppressing equality and freedom of speech is quite familiar to them, but violence - despite their Muslim faith - is very foreign to most of them. Which of course is why Al Qaeda considers them traitors to Islam - they have too much in common with their supposed enemies the Israelis or Americans, and almost no common points of reference with a radical Muslim Chechen or Afghan.

Islam today is the most violent religion only in its overlap with regions that are good breeding grounds for violent extremism anyway - there's no reason to believe that in a country with the material preconditions the US has that fundamentalist Muslims wouldn't be more like the Westboro Baptists. By trying to indicate that Islam is in itself a greater driver of violence than Christianity, Maher conflates extremely disparate cultures and regions and obscures the real issues.

@shinyblurry, I don't care about scripture. I don't believe in it. I don't believe it was written by God, directly or through man. I believe it was written by man, alone, and has been translated, manipulated, and copied for centuries so even if it had any truth, it would be long, long gone. The scripture you quote is all about trying to fool yourself anyway. God could prove his existence in a millionth of a second, why is he so insecure that he needs to play games with us?

I used to pray, but I have never ever heard of one single prayer actually having any supernatural effect. It always comes down to confirmation bias or the placebo effect. Not once has a single prayer done a damn thing, yet people fool themselves into not only believing that it works, but that it always works.

Again, I have considered this at great length. I was Christian, I was probably baptised, I believed in God and I tried to talk to him. But I grew out of having invisible friends.

Everything, every possible set of circumstances, is "consistent with the bible", because your interpretation morphs to fit whatever reality you can't manage to pretend doesn't exist. When childish nonsense like "God works in mysterious ways" is considered a valid argument, absolutely anything will confirm your belief that the Bible says God is true and that's reliable because God says the Bible is true and that's reliable because the Bible says God is true and that's reliable because God says ...

As an atheist, you think injecting religious nuttery into a government proceeding is "beautiful and touching"? I think it's atrocious, and I think it's unfortunate that someone who thinks critically enough to reject the supernatural delusions of religion can't perceive the impact it can have on religious freedom (read: my freedom from it) when it infects government on any level. The efforts (some successful) of the insane hoards of thousand-yarders in this country to do just that definitely have me "spoiling for a fight".

"I am as separation-of-church-and-state as you get."

Ok, I'm an atheist. I am as separation-of-church-and-state as you get. I thought the prayer was beautiful and touching. I thought the sentiment contained was one that all people, believer or non-believer, straight or gay, could understand and respect. Yes, it was a prayer in a government function. If the preacher left out "In the name of Jesus Christ", I would have had no problem with it.

I understand the rage of the guy getting on his soap box. He's totally right about opening a government function with a prayer. But I also think it's a battle he didn't need to wage. Had the preacher said "Gays are bad because God says so," then get up on that soap box and rail and rant. But calling out a basic invocation for respect and understanding, regardless of the supernatural aspect, just made him, and by association all atheists, look like nutters spoiling for a fight whenever someone mentions God, regardless of the context.