As to what you find most interesting, to each his own.

What’s interesting is that Maher contradicts himself. He says that line that I quoted and then agrees that the religious are compartmentalizing, which implies that they are doing the very thing he says they can’t do. Oh, and bonus demerits for flippant use of the word “retarded.”

I agee. I also don’t like how he makes generalizations.

There’s a difference to me between someone who accepts scientific truths but thinks there has to be “something more” out there and someone who thinks God created us in our present form and actually listens to our prayers. And that should come into account.

Yes it should. Too bad it doesn’t. I think Conan should have called him on it and said “so if you think I’m a Schizo, why are you on my show?” Having worked with schizophrenics, I’d say that’s a very strong word to use to generalize all people who believe in a god (though it certainly seems almost true for people like Pat Robertson and many fundies/evangelicals!)

Maher lumps them all together for convenience and comedic effect.

Yeah, and it’s not very funny.

Hemant said:

There’s a difference to me between someone who accepts scientific truths but thinks there has to be “something more” out there and someone who thinks God created us in our present form and actually listens to our prayers.

Would it be completely out of the question to be all of the above?

Carry on said:

Believing is a mandated requirement for any presidential candidate in 2008. Why?

Correction. Claiming to believe is. Who can tell if anyone is a true believer?

Religious beiiefs can only become irrational when it is possible to refute them with physical evidence.

do you not consider the claim of absolute knowledge on this subject irrational? many religious people claim to know god, speak to god, even see and hear god. if they described their god as ‘harvey-the-six-foot-rabbit’ they would be considered irrational, it seems an exemption of standards to decide because they are calling these experiences a god it may suddenly be rational.

i don’t really care if people follow a deist or pantheist approach to religion, but as soon as doctrines creep in with paticular qualities attributed to their god, religion is claiming to know the unknowable, and that for me is where irrationality begins. (for clarity, i agree with Hemant that there’s definately huge variables of irrationality throughout religious beliefs).

Some believers seem to be making up their own rules about what they can and can’t believe. For example, I could never make myself think there was a devil, or a hell, among other things, so I didn’t believe that part. When a person gets to that point, they are very close to not believing at all. They are counted as believers, but they undermine the church and don’t generally support it financially. Maher’s humor is quite possible aimed at helping them take that last step or two toward atheism.

The stakes are high. Believing is a mandated requirement for any presidential candidate in 2008. Why? Is that a guaranty of morality, statesmanship, intellengence or coalition building? Nontheists can bring all those things to the table, but the country is in the hands of the religious right. I want a president who can think critically and logically about the problems we face and let someone else do the praying for devine guidance, whatever THAT is.

I think it only makes sense to think of things in terms of rationality and irrationality if they are susceptible to reasoning. Religious beiiefs can only become irrational when it is possible to refute them with physical evidence. Otherwise it’s no more a question of rationality than a preference for red over green or Lewis over Pullman, though in the latter some of us vote none of the above.

Hemant, do you agree with the quote in your post from PZ? If you do, how can you explain all of the quite rational people who believe and practice religion?

That quote is from Maher, not PZ. Are there rational people who also practice religion? Yes. But in church or in their religious life, they do choose to believe something on faith that I believe is inherently irrational. That’s not calling them crazy. We all know there are intelligent people who believe in God. But depending on what stories you believe, there is a gradation of how much irrationality you feel comfortable accepting.

There’s a difference to me between someone who accepts scientific truths but thinks there has to be “something more” out there and someone who thinks God created us in our present form and actually listens to our prayers. And that should come into account.

Maher lumps them all together for convenience and comedic effect.