Angry, Murdering, God

[JoltinJoe]

You'd think a decent, intelligent god would have been more clear from the beginning.

Instead he sets up this impossible game where his pieces must have a divinity Phd. from Fordumb to make sense of anything. And, he creates billions of other people and sets em up with a false religion knowing he will send them to eternal suffering for not worshipping him.

Realizing he **** up, he decides to clone himself by raping and impregnating a married virgin who will then give birth to him so he can save the world from essentially himself.

Saving the world is not enough. He allegedly passes the torch to one of the most **** up and evil organizations in the history of world in the Catholic church to carry on his legacy. 2000 years and countless atrocities and the coward refuses to show his face, except on pieces of toast and to morons in sparsly populated shitholes.

Now this Church is known for rampant corruption and raping children.

This is some fine work right here and I know Joe is smart enough to appreciate it. Whether he'll admit it or not.

These are basic questions which need to be answered -- and have been by theologians.

People say something like, "If there is a God, why is there suffering in the world," but then never seek answers to such questions. Answers are out there, waiting for you to consider them. And you don't need a PhD to understand the answers.

Putting aside the hyperbole, D1B asks valid questions. But asking questions, without seeking answers, is pointless.

As for the Catholic Church, whose misdeeds over time are severely exaggerated here, it is fundamentally wrong to indict an entire church because of the actions of some who are clergy. However, let's assume for the moment that there is some powerful force which seeks to make men do evil things and fall from intended grace. Wouldn't that force seek to pervert members of the clergy of a true church? In fact, such perversion would be a windfall for evil, because you have not only corrupted and perverted an individual clergy member, but his fall is likely to cause others to lose faith.

Clergy are just men and they are subject to the same (or more, see above) temptations we face. It is just that their fall is likely to cause others to lose faith, so they are very inviting targets for this evil force.

[D1B]

Now, now, Joe. Every one of us is on record, including me, as a believer in some kind of higher power or god. At the very least, we admit we don't know.

Any perceived denigration is directed at your god as revealed by your church's dogma...often ridiculous dogma and your arrogance in claiming you know what god is thinking. That's all.

We all know you're very intelligent, OK?...but that doesn't mean you're not delusional or a victim of indoctrination.

I am not delusional or a victim of indoctrination.

You say, you believe in some higher power, which is great, but you don't seem to have any idea of what the nature of that higher power is. Is it a personal higher power -- let's call "higher power" a "God" of some undefined nature)-- a personal God who maintains an interest in those he has created, both individually or collectively? That's the key question. And ultimately, I submit that a personal God is the only God which makes sense, for numerous and various reasons.

Great. You should just leave it at that.

If you were born in India or Cambodia or Tibet you would believe something entirely different.

You were still indoctrinated/abused from birth to believe the fairy tales/dogma/theological embellishment of your above simple, clear declaration of faith. You were dragged to church every sunday and forced to participate in ritualistic cannibalism, worship flawed men in dresses, and recite ridiculous chants. You're so deep in it you defend the crimes, past and present of your church - this the target of our derision.

[JoltinJoe]

I am not delusional or a victim of indoctrination.

You say, you believe in some higher power, which is great, but you don't seem to have any idea of what the nature of that higher power is. Is it a personal higher power -- let's call "higher power" a "God" of some undefined nature)-- a personal God who maintains an interest in those he has created, both individually or collectively? That's the key question. And ultimately, I submit that a personal God is the only God which makes sense, for numerous and various reasons.

Great. You should just leave it at that.

If you were born in India or Cambodia or Tibet you would believe something entirely different.

You were still indoctrinated/abused from birth to believe the fairy tales/dogma/theological embellishment of your above simple, clear declaration of faith. You were dragged to church every sunday and forced to participate in ritualistic cannibalism, worship flawed men in dresses, and recite ridiculous chants. You're so deep in it you defend the crimes, past and present of your church - this the target of our derision.

I don't defend criminals. I do defend against exaggerations and distortions of what occurred.

You might concede me that point, given that my predictions about how certain lawsuits and criminal proceedings will turn out have proven to be uncannily accurate.

[D1B]

This is some fine work right here and I know Joe is smart enough to appreciate it. Whether he'll admit it or not.

These are basic questions which need to be answered -- and have been by theologians.

People say something like, "If there is a God, why is there suffering in the world," but then never seek answers to such questions. Answers are out there, waiting for you to consider them. And you don't need a PhD to understand the answers.

Putting aside the hyperbole, D1B asks valid questions. But asking questions, without seeking answers, is pointless.

As for the Catholic Church, whose misdeeds over time are severely exaggerated here, it is fundamentally wrong to indict an entire church because of the actions of some who are clergy. However, let's assume for the moment that there is some powerful force which seeks to make men do evil things and fall from intended grace. Wouldn't that force seek to pervert members of the clergy of a true church? In fact, such perversion would be a windfall for evil, because you have not only corrupted and perverted an individual clergy member, but his fall is likely to cause others to lose faith.

Clergy are just men and they are subject to the same (or more, see above) temptations we face. It is just that their fall is likely to cause others to lose faith, so they are very inviting targets for this evil force.

Your popes are involved in your crimes. Heavily involved.

They did it while you were kneeling and chanting and filling your head with nonsense.

[D1B]

Great. You should just leave it at that.

If you were born in India or Cambodia or Tibet you would believe something entirely different.

You were still indoctrinated/abused from birth to believe the fairy tales/dogma/theological embellishment of your above simple, clear declaration of faith. You were dragged to church every sunday and forced to participate in ritualistic cannibalism, worship flawed men in dresses, and recite ridiculous chants. You're so deep in it you defend the crimes, past and present of your church - this the target of our derision.

I don't defend criminals. I do defend against exaggerations and distortions of what occurred.

You might concede me that point, given that my predictions about how certain lawsuits and criminal proceedings will turn out have proven to be uncannily accurate.

Your hope that the rare unsubstantiated claim makes up for the thousands of valid cases where children and women were raped by your priests and these crimes covered up by your church leaders is a prime target of our derision.

Joe, this aint court.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't think JoltinJoe is an arrogant prick in real life.

"What if he went to some crappy third-tier law school? Like Fordham or Arizona State."






Heard that on television the other night and thought of Joe.

Not for nothing, but the National Law Journal just ranked Fordham the 19th best law school in the country, one behind USC and one ahead of Notre Dame, measured by job placement.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... chool.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also note that Fordham ranks as the 15th most difficult law school to which to gain admission.

[D1B]

"What if he went to some crappy third-tier law school? Like Fordham or Arizona State."






Heard that on television the other night and thought of Joe.

Not for nothing, but the National Law Journal just ranked Fordham the 19th best law school in the country, one behind USC and one ahead of Notre Dame, measured by job placement.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... chool.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also note that Fordham ranks as the 15th most difficult law school to which to gain admission.

Why is a catholic university producing lawyers? Seriously.

[JoltinJoe]

Plenty of lawyers do meaningful, important work. Bad and/or greedy lawyers get all the attention, but there are plenty of lawyers who assist people who really need legal assistance.

Personally, I would love to do public interest work exclusively. And if the state and federal governments didn't confiscate over 50% of what I've earned over the years -- so that I could now provide for me and my family for the rest of my life without worry -- and if the financial institutions had not plundered 40% of my net worth about five years ago, I would already be doing that.

[YoUDeeMan]

Joe says the hordes of whack jobs in positions of power in the Church over the centuries were exceptions to the greatness of God, and are not to be used as a measure of what harm can come from a person being chained to a philosophy that allows people to commit horrendous acts, but gain salvation by simply accepting God at the last second of life.

And somehow, Mao and Stalin are not isolated, off-track, selfish whack jobs when measuring humanity and morality without a God. Anyone who doesn't believe in a God must ultimately conclude that Mao and Stalin had morality right.

[JoltinJoe]

Joe says the hordes of whack jobs in positions of power in the Church over the centuries were exceptions to the greatness of God, and are not to be used as a measure of what harm can come from a person being chained to a philosophy that allows people to commit horrendous acts, but gain salvation by simply accepting God at the last second of life.

And somehow, Mao and Stalin are not isolated, off-track, selfish whack jobs when measuring humanity and morality without a God. Anyone who doesn't believe in a God must ultimately conclude that Mao and Stalin had morality right.

What reading comprehension and analytical skills you have.

Uh, and nice false summary of Catholic doctrine and history.

[Ibanez]

You seem a bit peevish today Joe.

What is it that makes you more qualified to speak about fantasy and myth, anyway?

Not peevish. Ironical, in a way which flies under the radar here.

You see, you guys are the arrogant pricks. You make fun of people of faith, dismissing faith a "myth," or "fantasy," and that their belief is comparable to belief in Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or to some bearded man living on a cloud. And after you see up your straw man position, you then denigrate anyone who would believe in God as a fool or an idiot.

But when someone steeped in theology shows up, sees such argument, and then throws out that there's no point in discussing theology with foolish people who've never earned a single college credit, you call me peevish. Don't you see I've placed the shoe on the other foot, and now I get called peevish and arrogant? Well, that's precisely what you guys do all the time. You don't engage in honest discussion. You just mock the intellect of any person of faith, as if they had an ounce of a brain, they would no doubt agree with you.

Get it?

BTW, I have 29 college credits in theology, including seven in world religions, and another four in Modern Jewish Thought. In contrast, I have no college credits in any course which studied Catholicism exclusively. But I have studied (at least) the basics for every major world religion in my world religion classes.

So I don't claim any standing to discuss "myth" and "fantasy." (You sound peevish for asking such a sarcastic question). I do have some standing to discuss theology.

Oh God. Has it come to comparing college credits?

[JoltinJoe]

Not peevish. Ironical, in a way which flies under the radar here.

You see, you guys are the arrogant pricks. You make fun of people of faith, dismissing faith a "myth," or "fantasy," and that their belief is comparable to belief in Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or to some bearded man living on a cloud. And after you see up your straw man position, you then denigrate anyone who would believe in God as a fool or an idiot.

But when someone steeped in theology shows up, sees such argument, and then throws out that there's no point in discussing theology with foolish people who've never earned a single college credit, you call me peevish. Don't you see I've placed the shoe on the other foot, and now I get called peevish and arrogant? Well, that's precisely what you guys do all the time. You don't engage in honest discussion. You just mock the intellect of any person of faith, as if they had an ounce of a brain, they would no doubt agree with you.

Get it?

BTW, I have 29 college credits in theology, including seven in world religions, and another four in Modern Jewish Thought. In contrast, I have no college credits in any course which studied Catholicism exclusively. But I have studied (at least) the basics for every major world religion in my world religion classes.

So I don't claim any standing to discuss "myth" and "fantasy." (You sound peevish for asking such a sarcastic question). I do have some standing to discuss theology.

Oh God. Has it come to comparing college credits?

I believe I was asked for "my credentials." So I stated them. And now I'm told that I'm comparing credentials???

Ask the question, get an answer, and then say, "Oh God", I'm the one comparing credentials.

[YoUDeeMan]

Joe says the hordes of whack jobs in positions of power in the Church over the centuries were exceptions to the greatness of God, and are not to be used as a measure of what harm can come from a person being chained to a philosophy that allows people to commit horrendous acts, but gain salvation by simply accepting God at the last second of life.

And somehow, Mao and Stalin are not isolated, off-track, selfish whack jobs when measuring humanity and morality without a God. Anyone who doesn't believe in a God must ultimately conclude that Mao and Stalin had morality right.

What reading comprehension and analytical skills you have.

Uh, and nice false summary of Catholic doctrine and history.

Stop the nonsense, joe.

You claim God is an individual God, yet you can't escape the fact, and it is a fact if you believe God is all powerful and all knowing, that God created this world knowing little girls would be repeatedly raped by their fathers, boys would be raped and have their trust taken by men of God, and people would watch their children/parents/siblings suffer slow, horrible deaths (eaten by ants, stricken by horrific diseases).

That fact alone should be enough to end any rational conversation regarding a loving God. But, you're not rational.

If what you believe is true, God could have made a much different world, joe, but he CHOSE to make mankind, as individuals, and collectively, suffer. There is no getting around that. Man didn't exist. God created Man...and flesh eating ants. And sharks. And disease. God didn't have to create diseases, but he CHOSE to.

To what end?

God wanted attention? He wanted people to worship him? Woo-hoo! God is the Sun King! Yup, I guess God really did make man (or at least some kings) in his image.

Joe, your God is an egotistical, sadomasochist creep who wants everyone's admiration for saving them from the suffering he himself created. Yet you believe he loves us, and we can't possibly understand him (all the while you say you actually do understand...because you had a few classes in people who study such stuff).

That is the story you are telling us to believe.

[JoltinJoe]

What reading comprehension and analytical skills you have.

Uh, and nice false summary of Catholic doctrine and history.

Stop the nonsense, joe.

You claim God is an individual God, yet you can't escape the fact, and it is a fact if you believe God is all powerful and all knowing, that God created this world knowing little girls would be repeatedly raped by their fathers, boys would be raped and have their trust taken by men of God, and people would watch their children/parents/siblings suffer slow, horrible deaths (eaten by ants, stricken by horrific diseases).

That fact alone should be enough to end any rational conversation regarding a loving God. But, you're not rational.

If what you believe is true, God could have made a much different world, joe, but he CHOSE to make mankind, as individuals, and collectively, suffer. There is no getting around that. Man didn't exist. God created Man...and flesh eating ants. And sharks. And disease. God didn't have to create diseases, but he CHOSE to.

To what end?

God wanted attention? He wanted people to worship him? Woo-hoo! God is the Sun King! Yup, I guess God really did make man (or at least some kings) in his image.

Joe, your God is an egotistical, sadomasochist creep who wants everyone's admiration for saving them from the suffering he himself created. Yet you believe he loves us, and we can't possibly understand him (all the while you say you actually do understand...because you had a few classes in people who study such stuff).

That is the story you are telling us to believe.

You're stupid. Go sail your boat, sailor boy.

[Ibanez]

Oh God. Has it come to comparing college credits?

I believe I was asked for "my credentials." So I stated them. And now I'm told that I'm comparing credentials???

Ask the question, get an answer, and then say, "Oh God", I'm the one comparing credentials.

Sorry, I didn't see you were asked to supply credentials. There's no need to get all uppity. It's the internet, dude!

[CID1990]

Quoting Bill Maher on theology.

Bill Maher.

Yes. Only believers should have an opinion. Everyone else is a dunce…Hitchens, Dawkins, Nye, Tyson, the Lama…morons.

I don't think anyone begrudges Bill Maher's opinion, but you are playing games by posting him and then playing the "he's entitled to his opinion" card. You aren't stupid, so that leaves only one other possibility.

He ridicules people, dude. He's an insufferable ass and there's nothing wrong with finding fault with him there. He could simply say he doesn't believe in God but he doesn't. He says "I don't believe in God and you must be some kind of idiot caveman because you do."

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I took a Religions of the World course at Delaware. There was a smokin' hot blonde in that class, so I rarely skipped. Got an "A".

[kalm]

Yes. Only believers should have an opinion. Everyone else is a dunce…Hitchens, Dawkins, Nye, Tyson, the Lama…morons.

I don't think anyone begrudges Bill Maher's opinion, but you are playing games by posting him and then playing the "he's entitled to his opinion" card. You aren't stupid, so that leaves only one other possibility.

He ridicules people, dude. He's an insufferable ass and there's nothing wrong with finding fault with him there. He could simply say he doesn't believe in God but he doesn't. He says "I don't believe in God and you must be some kind of idiot caveman because you do."

I think Joe can be very eloquent on the subject when he cares to be, and when he is I will typically avoid trolling him.

I don't expect everyone to agree with Maher and I also think he can be an outrageously smug prick. But he often raises some interesting points albeit set in a satirical tone, but interesting none the less. Joe jumped in head first with claims of intellectual religious superiority and ties to atheism over a guy who was raised in a catholic home with a Jewish mother, graduated with degrees in literature and history from Cornell, who (like Joe) has spent his entire life studying religion, who even made a movie on the subject, and who proclaims himself an agnostic.

Joe begged for this fight.

And it's been very entertaining (which is of course why I started the thread.)

[YoUDeeMan]

Stop the nonsense, joe.

You claim God is an individual God, yet you can't escape the fact, and it is a fact if you believe God is all powerful and all knowing, that God created this world knowing little girls would be repeatedly raped by their fathers, boys would be raped and have their trust taken by men of God, and people would watch their children/parents/siblings suffer slow, horrible deaths (eaten by ants, stricken by horrific diseases).

That fact alone should be enough to end any rational conversation regarding a loving God. But, you're not rational.

If what you believe is true, God could have made a much different world, joe, but he CHOSE to make mankind, as individuals, and collectively, suffer. There is no getting around that. Man didn't exist. God created Man...and flesh eating ants. And sharks. And disease. God didn't have to create diseases, but he CHOSE to.

To what end?

God wanted attention? He wanted people to worship him? Woo-hoo! God is the Sun King! Yup, I guess God really did make man (or at least some kings) in his image.

Joe, your God is an egotistical, sadomasochist creep who wants everyone's admiration for saving them from the suffering he himself created. Yet you believe he loves us, and we can't possibly understand him (all the while you say you actually do understand...because you had a few classes in people who study such stuff).

That is the story you are telling us to believe.

You're stupid. Go sail your boat, sailor boy.

That wasn't very Christian of you, but then again, you aren't a Christian, are you?

It doesn't take a PhD to understand the fact that if God is all knowing, then God made Man knowing little girls would be repeatedly raped by their fathers.

There is no getting around that, Joe. God made little girls so that some of them would be repeatedly raped by their fathers. It had to be in God's grand scheme because he KNEW it would happen. In fact, if God didn't want little girls raped by their fathers, then HE would have not allowed that to happen. That possibility simply would not exist.

Why did God, all powerful and all knowing, ever put such a possibility into our make up? And, what does God say to that little girl if she rejects God's love? "Girl, I did it all for you, the individual that I love, and you don't love me?"

You believe in an all-powerful, LOVING, God that created Man, knowing some men would repeatedly rape some of their daughters (in fact God had to specifically create some men with such desires), and yet you call me stupid?

[CID1990]

I don't think anyone begrudges Bill Maher's opinion, but you are playing games by posting him and then playing the "he's entitled to his opinion" card. You aren't stupid, so that leaves only one other possibility.

He ridicules people, dude. He's an insufferable ass and there's nothing wrong with finding fault with him there. He could simply say he doesn't believe in God but he doesn't. He says "I don't believe in God and you must be some kind of idiot caveman because you do."

I think Joe can be very eloquent on the subject when he cares to be, and when he is I will typically avoid trolling him.

I don't expect everyone to agree with Maher and I also think he can be an outrageously smug prick. But he often raises some interesting points albeit set in a satirical tone, but interesting none the less. Joe jumped in head first with claims of intellectual religious superiority and ties to atheism over a guy who was raised in a catholic home with a Jewish mother, graduated with degrees in literature and history from Cornell, who (like Joe) has spent his entire life studying religion, who even made a movie on the subject, and who proclaims himself an agnostic.

Joe begged for this fight.

And it's been very entertaining (which is of course why I started the thread.)

Maher is nothing but a prick, and not really a funny one at that. And not really creative- he doesn't say anything that 50 other well known atheists haven't said.

If you're looking to just be a troll, then Maher is fine, I guess. For a substantive argument he isn't sh1t. I'd go with Hitchens.

[BlueHen86]

You seem a bit peevish today Joe.

What is it that makes you more qualified to speak about fantasy and myth, anyway?

Not peevish. Ironical, in a way which flies under the radar here.

You see, you guys are the arrogant pricks. You make fun of people of faith, dismissing faith a "myth," or "fantasy," and that their belief is comparable to belief in Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or to some bearded man living on a cloud. And after you see up your straw man position, you then denigrate anyone who would believe in God as a fool or an idiot.

But when someone steeped in theology shows up, sees such argument, and then throws out that there's no point in discussing theology with foolish people who've never earned a single college credit, you call me peevish. Don't you see I've placed the shoe on the other foot, and now I get called peevish and arrogant? Well, that's precisely what you guys do all the time. You don't engage in honest discussion. You just mock the intellect of any person of faith, as if they had an ounce of a brain, they would no doubt agree with you.

Get it?

BTW, I have 29 college credits in theology, including seven in world religions, and another four in Modern Jewish Thought. In contrast, I have no college credits in any course which studied Catholicism exclusively. But I have studied (at least) the basics for every major world religion in my world religion classes.

So I don't claim any standing to discuss "myth" and "fantasy." (You sound peevish for asking such a sarcastic question). I do have some standing to discuss theology.

I am disappointed to read this. I was under the impression that this argument was in good fun. I thought you and D1B have met and liked each other. When you guys go at it on here it's a must read. You guys make me laugh and think, it's awesome.

I was raised Presbyterian, as I have gotten older I have gravitated more to agnostic and perhaps even atheist. A lot of what D1B and cluck say make sense to me. On the other hand I really admire the fact that you have thought things through logically and still have faith. I wish I had faith like you.

[kalm]

I think Joe can be very eloquent on the subject when he cares to be, and when he is I will typically avoid trolling him.

I don't expect everyone to agree with Maher and I also think he can be an outrageously smug prick. But he often raises some interesting points albeit set in a satirical tone, but interesting none the less. Joe jumped in head first with claims of intellectual religious superiority and ties to atheism over a guy who was raised in a catholic home with a Jewish mother, graduated with degrees in literature and history from Cornell, who (like Joe) has spent his entire life studying religion, who even made a movie on the subject, and who proclaims himself an agnostic.

Joe begged for this fight.

And it's been very entertaining (which is of course why I started the thread.)

Maher is nothing but a prick, and not really a funny one at that. And not really creative- he doesn't say anything that 50 other well known atheists haven't said.

If you're looking to just be a troll, then Maher is fine, I guess. For a substantive argument he isn't sh1t. I'd go with Hitchens.

You know...and correct me of I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to get the impression you don't like Bill Maher, or something...

And coming from you, the king of substantive arguments and non sarcastic, and non trolling posts, this is rich!

[BlueHen86]

Maher is nothing but a prick, and not really a funny one at that. And not really creative- he doesn't say anything that 50 other well known atheists haven't said.

If you're looking to just be a troll, then Maher is fine, I guess. For a substantive argument he isn't sh1t. I'd go with Hitchens.

You know...and correct me of I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to get the impression you don't like Bill Maher, or something...

And coming from you, the king of substantive arguments and non sarcastic, and non trolling posts, this is rich!

I like Bill Maher, and I like his show. To his credit, he tries to get opposing views on his show and he lets them talk. Ann Coulter and Darryl Issa have been on many times.

I don't take Maher seriously though. He is funny at times and he raises good points, but he is not always correct.

[D1B]

Not peevish. Ironical, in a way which flies under the radar here.

You see, you guys are the arrogant pricks. You make fun of people of faith, dismissing faith a "myth," or "fantasy," and that their belief is comparable to belief in Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or to some bearded man living on a cloud. And after you see up your straw man position, you then denigrate anyone who would believe in God as a fool or an idiot.

But when someone steeped in theology shows up, sees such argument, and then throws out that there's no point in discussing theology with foolish people who've never earned a single college credit, you call me peevish. Don't you see I've placed the shoe on the other foot, and now I get called peevish and arrogant? Well, that's precisely what you guys do all the time. You don't engage in honest discussion. You just mock the intellect of any person of faith, as if they had an ounce of a brain, they would no doubt agree with you.

Get it?

BTW, I have 29 college credits in theology, including seven in world religions, and another four in Modern Jewish Thought. In contrast, I have no college credits in any course which studied Catholicism exclusively. But I have studied (at least) the basics for every major world religion in my world religion classes.

So I don't claim any standing to discuss "myth" and "fantasy." (You sound peevish for asking such a sarcastic question). I do have some standing to discuss theology.

I am disappointed to read this. I was under the impression that this argument was in good fun. I thought you and D1B have met and liked each other. When you guys go at it on here it's a must read. You guys make me laugh and think, it's awesome.

I was raised Presbyterian, as I have gotten older I have gravitated more to agnostic and perhaps even atheist. A lot of what D1B and cluck say make sense to me. On the other hand I really admire the fact that you have thought things through logically and still have faith. I wish I had faith like you.

I love Joe. Dude is very intelligent, but you cannot dismiss the fact that catholicism is part of his DNA. Everything he reads, sees, feels, smell, touches is filtered through a lifetime of aggressive religious and religio-cultural indoctrination. By default, he is incapable of thinking thoroughly and logically about his religion.

I agree, he has diligently mined the massive pile of catholic dogma shit and has found the answers he personally needs and it works for him. I admire him too.

[D1B]

You know...and correct me of I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to get the impression you don't like Bill Maher, or something...

And coming from you, the king of substantive arguments and non sarcastic, and non trolling posts, this is rich!

I like Bill Maher, and I like his show. To his credit, he tries to get opposing views on his show and he lets them talk. Ann Coulter and Darryl Issa have been on many times.

I don't take Maher seriously though. He is funny at times and he raises good points, but he is not always correct.

He'll be the first to admit it too. He's constantly basing Obama.