Bill Maher’s Cinematic Endeavor

“…we interview God…”

Thus states Larry Charles about his new documentary starring Bill Maher.

Let us face the facts, now is the time for any and all atheists who are so inclined to join the ranks of the Neo sect of atheism and let it all hang out. This sect is rude, crude, belligerent, belittling and let us not forget illogically fallacious, historically ignorant, committed to the “science” de jour and as good old fashioned wrong as ever. Seriously, if you are an atheist of this sect and you have not made at least a few million denarius ranting against “religion” then you are doing something wrong.

If you are an atheist who is not an adherent of this sect then I am sorry to break it to you but another very, very poor example of “atheism” is on its way.


DISCLAIMER: I have not viewed the documentary that I am about to mention. Thus, I will only be commenting on the actual contents in as much as they have been revealed by the director and star.

Bill Maher is the star of a new documentary entitled “Religulous,” which was due to be released on Easter for maximum controversy. Mr. Maher and Mr. Charles have teamed up in order to travel the world and answer questions such as:

“What do you believe, why do you believe it, and why do you need to believe it? Can we be good without God? Is religion a calling or a mental illness? Were Jesus, Moses and Mohammed prophets and visionaries, or crackpot nut cases who today would be put away? Is religion an obsessive-compulsive disorder?”[1]
Mr. Charles refers to the documentary as, surprise I know,

“…a raunchy, rude, irreverent, outrageous, and shocking nonfiction film about the greatest fiction ever told. Set to the rhythms of ‘Sympathy for the Devil’…”[2]

The New York Post referred to Religulous as “…the most sacrilegious movie ever made.”[3] And one which “…is poised to void on every faith. Any faith.”[4] Of course, one can only wonder, although a good guess may suffice, if Mr. Maher will tackle his own religion, atheism. This would have been most interesting when you consider that, for instance, the documentary intends on besmirching the concept of a virgin birth. I freely admit to taking some license here since I do not know Mr. Maher’s particular views on the origins of life and so I will attribute to him a view that is likely to be accurate of a generic atheist view. Picture this if you will: Mr. Maher will belittle the concept of a virgin birth while, at the same time, believing that all life on earth was uncaused by spontaneous abiogenesis. How is the concept of a virgin birth any more preposterous than the concept of life coming from a swamp being struck by lightning? At least with a virgin birth you have a woman, an egg and a womb involved, this is half of the equation. Mr. Maher could choose any of the utterly failed materialistic theories regarding life’s origins and the conclusion is the same (see here for a variety of examples). On the one hand you have the claim of a divine miracle and on the other, the claim of a materialistic miracle, which Prof. Richard Dawkins prefers to term “luck.”
Prof. Dawkins has written:

“Chance, luck, coincidence, miracle…events that we commonly call miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a spectrum of more-or-less improbable natural events. A miracle, in other words, if it occurs at all, is a tremendous stoke of luck.”[5]
And what of his view of origins?:

“It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck.”[6]
See my essay The Gap Filler where I provide examples of how atheist, scientists and atheist scientists fill the gaps in our knowledge with time, chance, matter and even imagination, luck and yes, even faith.

Well, there is something to be said about pandering to the tastes and intellectual capacity of your audience. I wonder if he is aware that Mick Jagger, of the Rolling Stones who wrote the song “Sympathy for the Devil,” has stated that whenever they play that song something odd always happens. Such was the case when the Rolling Stones hired the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang to do security for their Altamont Speedway concert in 1969 where a Hell’s Angels stabbed a young African American to death. In fact, while the original song was being recorded a lamp in the studio caught fire.

But this is a mere aside. Mr. Charles refers to the God of the Bible as living “in space” and “in the sky” and states that after Jesus dies, “…he rises from the dead and flies into space to be with his father (who is also him.)”[7] Of course, such stunning ignorance of the very subject about which he will be releasing a documentary may not be at all surprising. The neo-atheist sect is not concerned with accuracy but with detonation of emotionally charged grenades. After all what is one to expect from “raunchy, rude, irreverent, outrageous, and shocking”? Absolutely nothing but millions of dollars for him, laughs from the neos and retorts from the “religious.”

I was not at all surprised that Mr. Charles directed the documentary since he is most recently known for the movie “Borat.” “Religulous” is really Borat part II since Borat was a movie about a man pretending to be interested in learning new things about other cultures (the USA in this case) but was really only interested in pure mockery.

Mr. Maher has stated:

“Since starting on Politically Incorrect in 1993, it has been my pleasure over the last decade and a half to make organized religion one of my favorite targets. I often explained to people, ‘I don’t need to make fun of religion, it makes fun of itself.’ And, then I go ahead and make fun of it too, just for laughs.”[8]
Mr. Maher refers to himself as an apatheist in that he is apathetic about God’s existence. Although how apathetic can he be? He devotes comedy routines, portions of his show, interviews and a documentary about God and religion. Perhaps God is only important enough to mock. Well Mr. Maher, it’s been done, done to death in fact, to death.

It is interesting to note that he commits an utterly typical fallacy. For example, he states that he does not know what happens after we die and then extrapolates from himself to everyone of the 8 billion people on earth. He fallaciously reasons thusly: I do not know and since I do not know no one knows and anyone who claims to know is somehow in error.

This will certainly be an interesting project. The difficulty will be to take this documentary seriously. I realize that it is meant to be “funny” and that is precisely what is so neo-atheist about it. They want to score points against religion while being funny. Therefore, on the one hand they can claim to have scored point yet, on the other hand they can get away with fallacies by stating that they set out to be funny. This reminds me of Dan Brown who claimed that “The Da Vinci Code” was historically accurate but then decided to leave it to the scholars when people came out of the woodworks proving him inaccurate in every conceivable way. Hit and run…all the way to the bank.

I could also see people committing the ad hominen based on the fact that even if we grant that religious faith is fallacious, if the alternative is to be like Mr. Maher then, “No thanks.”
Let us imagine that it is proved beyond doubt that any and all belief in God and the supernatural is nothing but a consoling delusion. If the alternative is to take of the worldview that characterizes the neo-atheists then I think that I would choose the consoling delusion. Why would I give up my perfectly good morals and love for my neighbor to become a belligerent, belittling and arrogant bully who makes a living by besmirching people?

Let us face it, he is certainly not the best, or even mediocre, example of anything that could even be imagined to be decent. He thinks that incestuous pedophilia is hilarious (see here), he rejoices when people such as Jerry Falwell die (as did Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens), he likens public breast feeing to public masturbation, etc., etc., etc.
My heart truly does go out to Mr. Maher because he is obviously a very, very troubled man. He is an example of a person who is so twisted and perverse that everything that he sees, hears or thinks about becomes mangled. The reality of what he is seeing, hearing or thinking about becomes distorted when it is filtered through the darkness of his worldview. This is evidenced by the fact that when he considers fathers who are so concerned about their own little daughter’s purity, mental and physical wellbeing that they take them to purity balls, father daughter dances, etc. he perverts it and claims that “then dad has sex with her in the car” (this is followed by roaring laughter and applause from his audience). He sees a woman nourishing her beautiful little baby and he thinks about people manipulating their very own genitalia public-wise. How sad it must be to be so blinded and consumed by such darkness.

There are three interesting videos that I would recommend you watch in the order that I place them here:

Maher Making New Documentary Movie, “Religulous”

Bill Maher - APATHEIST - on Scarborough Country - 1 of 2

Bill Maher - APATHEIST - on Scarborough Country - 2 of 2

The reason that I recommend this order is that it makes a point, it shows Mr. Maher going from a confident and witty man who knows what he it talking about to a child who falls apart upon being asked the most basic question. The first link is an interview with Larry King where Mr. Maher has his say, a virtual monologue. However, when being interviewed by Joe Scarborough Mr. Maher is asked questions which stop him dead in his tracks and causes him to spout out clearly fallacious statements which only go to demonstrate his ignorance of Christian theology and the contents and purpose of the New Testament.

I must say that I was reminded of watching Ben Stein’s “Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed” (which I reviewed here) because various interviewees are seen expounding their materialistic-Darwinian theories very confidently and authoritatively only to stop dead in their tracks when simply asked how they actually know that what they are saying is accurate. Likewise, Mr. Maher comes across as pretty bright and sharp when he is on script in front of an audience that is there to adore him. Yet, when simply asked, “How do you know?” he falls apart and grasps at straws and only succeeds in discrediting himself further.

Maher has two difficult mountains to climb:
He is a clown trying to make a serious yet funny point while wearing his big nose and floppy shoes. Everything that he states could be perfectly accurate but you are just thinking, “I just know that at any moment water is going to come squirting out of that plastic flower on his lapel.” Thus, Mr. Maher does a disservice by not giving himself an opportunity for a substantive contribution. Although, this is my take while Mr. Maher’s take is to be abusive, laugh and bank on it “just for laughs.”
Secondly, he is sadly of very, very poor character even while trying to belittle others.

What is one to do about such outpourings of raunch, rudeness, etc. the same as ever: give it a fair hearing/viewing and make informed decisions at that time and criticize the content if need be.

ANNOUCEMENT: To our atheist readership,

I am calling upon you to assist me in getting the scoop on this Mr. Maher’s endeavor.

I want to know who is funding the documentary.
I want to know who is funding the advertising.
I want to know what music they used and whether they violated copyright laws.
I want to know under what pretenses people were interviewed.
I want to know if any of the interviewees have complained about being mislead.
I want to know if the documentary was creatively edited.
I want to know everything that can possibly be known, dirt and all.

Thank you so very much for your cooperation.

[1] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told
[2] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told
[3] New York Post, He of No Faith Makes Most Ungodly Movie (April 9, 2007)
[4] New York Post, He of No Faith Makes Most Ungodly Movie (April 9, 2007)
[5] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 139
[6] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 145
[7] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told
[8] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told

Continue reading Bill Maher’s Cinematic Endeavor...


New 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' Trailer

The following is a recent trailer for the upcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which is open in cinemas this Friday:

In related news, the producers of the movie, Premise Media, were accused by XVIVO of ripping off the Harvard 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation. XVIVO later backed down, and now Premise Media has filed a lawsuit to have it declared that there is no copyright infringement, and seeking costs for the attorneys involved.

Continue reading New 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' Trailer...


A-theism is A-Potent and A-Moral

Friends, this post is a continuation of a discussion that was taking place in the comment section of “Bill Maher’s Sad Anniversary.” While responding to one of our readers I realized that in being thorough I became somewhat, yet hopefully not unnecessarily, verbose. I though to save this addendum for when we inaugurated “Atheism is Dead” as it seemed to be a good argument with which to begin a new blog.

As I explained to the reader, I am not turning part of my response into a new post in order to single them out, to embarrass, nor to call them out, or to use the posting section as a bully pulpit. I just thought that it was too much for the comments section and that it may open up new worm-holes of discussion.

To get us up to speed, we had been discussing morality and incest in particular:

Let me make the following argument as an intellectual exercise:


If I were an atheist I do not see how I could condemn all incest as absolutely wrong/immoral. What could I possibly say to condemn an adult brother and sister who have consented to copulation? How dare I stick my nose in their business and kick down the door of their bedroom? But what if they get pregnant and the baby has defects? Just murder it. What about two consenting adult brothers? What about two consenting adult sisters? How could I tell them that what they are doing is wrong/immoral, let them have their fun.

Moreover, if I were to encounter someone who was trying to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives due to pedophilic-incest I may make things worse by trying to comfort them, in a manner of speaking. I may prefer to explain to them that the reason that they are having a hard time coping is that they are influenced by ignorant and superstitious religious concepts of morality that authoritatively declare incest to be absolutely immoral. Rather, rid yourself of these influences and you will rid yourself of thinking that anything done to you was wrong, bad, evil or immoral. After all what is pedophilic-incest but the clumsy collision of two bloated sacks of protoplasm (to employ the term used by the philosopher Ren in referring to Stimpy), mass in motion, the dance of DNA, the outworking of genes.

Now to the ultimate question of absolute morals: atheism has none and atheists have none. Atheist would do well to not argue in favor of relative morality since this leaves them without the ability to condemn any action as “wrong,” “immoral” or “evil” (here I noted that Sam Harris believes that rape served a beneficial evolutionary purpose and here I noted that Dan Barker believes that rape is not absolutely immoral). And yet, when individual atheists do claim to believe in and or possess absolute morals we are confronted with a logical impossibility. Firstly, athe“ism” has no morals since it is merely the non belief in god(s) and thus carries with it no particular worldview or morals. Atheism is a blank canvas upon which individuals pain various pictures of life, the universe and everything. Any claim by any sect of atheism to absolute morality based on materialism is merely an a-potent ethic.

An elucidation of what is meant by “absolute” is that something is what it is and it is the way that it is—whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, whether we would prefer that it be different or not, whether we ignore it or acknowledge it. An absolute moral applies to all people in all times and places (sometimes from the time it is established onwards). What makes morality absolute is not that I, society, or the government decide that something is absolutely wrong but that there is an establisher and potent administer and that there is accountability.

For a sect of atheism or an individual atheist to state, “I believe that…is absolutely immoral” is tantamount to my stating, “I believe that birds should not fly.” It is simply an a-potent and meaningless statement. My believing that birds should not fly does not stop birds from flying nor does anything happen to birds that do fly. It is simply a statement that makes me believe that I have taken a strong stance and made my declaration but it is a mere opinion and thus, ultimately a-potent, null and void.

There are some that would argue that one action or another is “absolutely immoral for me.” Yet, self application, “for me,” changes the category from a true absolute to subjectivism—combining “absolute” and “for me” makes for an oxymoronic statement. You may still think that something can, in fact, be absolutely immoral for you but not anyone else; in which case your absolute-subjectivism would serve only to guide you and no one else. This is not even entirely fallacious: I may believe that eating meat is absolutely immoral for me but that you should eat whatever you want (the terminology is a bit flexible in such a case). This is the only morality to which atheist can attain—self originated, self imposed, self administered, and self regulated, self serving (not necessarily in a bad way, as in vegetarianism) and ultimately unaccountable.

Fine, but where does this self-based morality leave the rest of the world? How does this make incest absolutely immoral? It does not. Where there is no accountability and no justice there is no viable and potent absolute morality. Furthermore, if I state that I have a “visceral dislike of incest” or that “some things are just wrong” these are arguments from outrage. What personally repulses me has no bearing on morality—what if you have a visceral dislike for something that I quite enjoy? What happens to people who, in a materialistic universe, commit pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest? Well, if they live in a society where the act is illegal AND if they are caught then there are certain consequences. But what if it is not illegal and or if they do not get caught? What does my “visceral dislike of incest” and life experience in helping people who have suffered do to the perpetrator? Absolutely nothing. Atheism not only does not do anything about evil (particularly in an ultimate sense) atheism makes evil worse. The fact of evil in the world is perhaps the very best reason for rejecting atheism.

Atheism makes evil worse for at least three reasons:
1 – Let us grant that I decide that God does not exist because evil exists (or that God is a-potent or immoral and therefore not worthy of worship). What does this do about evil? Absolutely nothing. Evil still occurs and now I do not even have God to blame it on.
2- Atheism guarantees that we suffer evil for absolutely no reason whatsoever, no ultimate good can come out of it (I do not here mean something as mundane as the benefit of burning your finger a little bit and so learning to not touch a hot stove again).
3- Atheism makes it so that evil is worse. This is because in an absolutely materialistic universe evil benefits the evildoer. The victim of pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest suffers and may have no recourse to justice but the evildoers got to enjoy it and can very well simply get away with it. In the end atheism declares annihilation for all: the victim and the perpetrator will simply be annihilated at death. The victim may have suffered the consequences of pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest for a lifetime only to disappear into nothingness and the perpetrator enjoyed a lifetime of committing pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest and likewise disappears into nothingness.

Some atheists refer to the concept of ultimate supernatural meaning as consoling delusion. Of course, this is a mere assertion and one to which I may likewise retort by asserting thusly: atheism is a consoling delusion, it is a delusion that presumes absolute autonomy, a delusion that presumes lack of ultimate accountability. Moreover, atheism is a consoling delusion which presumes subjective meaning to one’s life in a universe which is objectively meaningless. And, as Tom Stoppard put it, “Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.”

Atheists may claim absolute morality but theirs is merely an a-potent and a-moral consoling delusion, a mere assertion.

Important Points:
1- Arguing for relative morals disqualified one from passing moral judgments or condemning any actions.
2- The atheist claim to absolute morals is a mere consoling delusion of an assertion.
3- Merely asserting absolute morality does not cause moral actions, does not prevent immoral actions and does not carries along with it accountability.
4- The only morality that atheist or athe“ism” can logically claim is necessarily subjective and tentative and therefore, not absolute.
5- Atheism’s morality is premised upon arguments from outrage which are a-potent.
6- Atheism makes evil worse.
7- Atheism does not actually do anything about evil, except complain.
8- Atheism guarantees needles un-benefiting suffering.
9- Atheism guarantees that evil benefits the evildoer.
10- Atheism is a consoling delusion.

Continue reading A-theism is A-Potent and A-Moral...


The BOBA Digest

Let us face the facts; every worldview has a bottom to its barrel where the murkiest of stuff dwells. This is an introduction to a new concept, namely: The BOBA Digest.

The Digest will be a specific designate for us to post with regards to the very worst, the most malicious, the creepiest, most obnoxious, murkiest and slimiest of atheism’s arguments. Ergo: B.O.B.A. Bottom of the Barrel Atheism.

Please note that this special place of dishonor is reserved for the individual(s) specifically addressed in each post (or generically addressed) and in is no way, shape, or form to be taken as a comment of either atheism or atheists in general.

As an example of a Christian (if he may even be referred to as such) who is at the unfathomable depths of Christianity’s barrel is “Pastor” Fred Phelps. He was made famous, or infamous, for, amongst other subhuman doings, picketing at the funerals of people who died of AIDS whilst holding signs that read “God Hates Fags,” or “Thank God for AIDS.” As far as bottom of barrels go, Phelps in definitely a bottom feeder.

All further references to The BOBA Digest are to be contextualized according to the parameter set here.
Continue reading The BOBA Digest...


Audio Archive

Update audio on AiD “Please note that the contents of this post have
been included in the Audio section of project Answering Atheism

Continue reading Audio Archive...