hear hear!

He doesn't say there are no gods, he says, "There are no gods actually talking to us".

I've yet to see the film however what you point out seems as though a real paradox.

I know that Maher has been less certain in his denial of God in recent years but this clip doesn't exactly bear that out.

He is not stating that there is no god, whatever that term means. He is saying that the supernatural beings described in every religious text in this world are false. He can know that anything supernatural is false with the same certainty that we all know there is no Santa Claus. They are both man made ideas, the idea of a man who lives in the north pole, and the idea of a supernatural being or beings that created the universe, one just happens to get people in a frenzy when you suggest as much. The very idea of "supernatural" is a man made idea that can neither be proven nor disproven the same way Santa clause can't be proven or disproven with 100% certainty.

However, when one gets specific to a religion and it's deity, one can certainly disprove them.

The bible itself disproves the existence of the judeo-christian god by it's contradictions, but even more simply by, "the problem of evil"... you'll have to look that one up yourself.

Hope this helps...

I can't prove gravity, but I will say colloquially that it exists and I am willing to bet that it will continue to exist.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say they know with absolute certainty that there is no god.

There are quite a few atheists who go further than not having a belief in a god and have a belief that there is no god.

The difference to a theistic belief in a god is that the former is based on evidence. The idea is that the universe would be a much different place if there was a god especially one that intervenes in human affairs.

I would go on record to say there are no unicorns. There is no way that I could possibly know that with 100% certainty but I don't require faith to say that.

He is stating that no one has proof, that people who claim to have proof are either lying or misinformed.

What is more likely, a strange sensation that you feel or a voice in your head occurs because of your own body (and for this we have evidence) or a god decides to talk to you directly.

The default position on any subject is non-belief until there is sufficient evidence. There is simply no evidence for a god so there is no more reason to believe in one than there is to believe in unicorns.

Well, that's a good point. And you're right, no one knows for sure if there is or isn't a God up there watching, listening, talking to us, etc.... But, I think the point was to try and open peoples minds to the idea of getting past the fear of God that billions of people have. And really, it's not all about the fear of Him, because as some believers will say, "there is a divine plan that only He knows and what happens, happens" ...that alone, can be a very destructive and lazy idea of reality that has already lead to many many human conflicts over the thousands of years of written religion.

I think most healthy human beings want to live and want to see their children live and their children live and on and on...but those who get so entrenched with Religion that they don't care about human life anymore (especially if that human life happens to believe in a different religion than them) can really hold back and enslave a civilization.

I'm now going to make a statement that I hope would benefit all of mankind, not just Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc...

It's time to wake up from this nightmare that our rulers have trapped us in, to control us and to manipulate us, and really tap into the exponentially capable human mind....only then can our God be found.

The truth is often smug and cocky.

If I say "I am a better person than Charles Manson" that sounds pretty damned arrogant, but I can assure you it's true.

It seems to me the core message that Maher is getting across is that we need to get over ourselves (humankind). We are not special, we are not intelligent, we are not different. We are animals, we will end and we are wasting our time arguing amongst one another when we could be enjoying ourselves.

All he's doing is talking. How many people are tortured and killed DAILY because of those "beliefs" which we atheists "can't disprove." He's being pretty clear about what he wants though. He wants those of us who have both passionate belief AND the net sum of empirical scientific evidence on our side to fight with the same conviction as the so called "faithful." Why? Because we'll never be safe from them. WE aren't ATTACKING you, we're DEFENDING OURSELVES. Atheists don't have a book and a church and a bunch of stupid stories that demand we heathen-ize you. I, however, can't keep the fucking faithful off my GODDAMNED LAWN.

You correctly observe that "there is no evidence either way," but you seem to think that this makes both sides equally likely, or at least logically equivalent. It does not.

Is there a china teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars? There is no evidence either way. So does that mean that my disbelief in the teapot puts me "on the same page" as someone who fervently believes that it is there? Is it a leap of "faith" to disbelieve in the teapot?

"growing turn towards zealotry within the atheist world as well"

Zealot, is by definition a Judeo-christian term.

If you mean something else, then fine, but any synonym of zealot that does not connote religion is still off base unless you give an example of atheists engaging in something akin to flying planes into buildings for their god's cause, or strapping bombs to themselves and blowing people up for their god's cause.

I'm tempted to call you an idiot, but I won't because I believe anyone with a religious belief is just smart enough to be dangerous, and most idiots are harmless.

I have to disagree with your use of the word zealotry. Zealotry can only be used to describe people who take their opinions (usually political) or beliefs (usually religious) to the extreme while disregarding common sense, rationality, and the known facts. Unfortunately, in today's mainstream media little fact checking or judgment is performed and opinions which are based on fact are given the same airtime and credence as those based on ignorance and bigotry. As a result, anyone who defends his/her opinion strongly is seen as a zealot regardless of how rational or fact-based his/her position is. This, in turn, makes many people (such as yourself, if I am not assuming too much) write off vocal atheists such as Christopher Hitchens as "zealots" and disregarding their arguments, however rational and fact-based they may be.

As to religious zealots versus more moderate or liberal religious people, please bear in mind that there is actually little difference between these groups. Both believe that the bible/qur'an/torah/etc is the word of god(s) in some form or another and that irrational belief in god(s) and suspension of common sense (or even disregard of the facts) is a virtue. Zealots just go a bit further, picking verses which support their own violent and/or bigoted nature, while so-called "moderates" choose to value verses which reflect more mainstream ideas of love and tolerance.

The real problem is the assertion that religious people have some kind of knowledge of god(s) and their will via holy texts which are considered the word/will/rules or god(s). Due to this, religions tell us how to live and what to believe not because these rules/beliefs will make the world a better place or save lives, but simply because they are what god(s) command us to do. Which is better? A man who does good because he is commanded to, or a man who does good because because he knows it will save lives or make life better for his fellow man?

Furthermore, how does the religious man know what is good and what is bad? When reality and common sense are ignored (and all religious people do this to a certain degree), all that is left is the holy text and the instructions of religious leaders. Because humans often give into hate and practically any action good or bad from caring for one's neighbor to genocide can be supported by the bible and the qur'an, it is inevitable for religious people to do bad things simply because they are commanded to by their god(s) (via holy texts and religious leaders).

In this way, religious moderates actually act as enablers of religious zealotry because both groups are driven by the same force - following the will of god(s). Zealots are considered such merely because the religious commands they follow and beliefs they hold fall outside of what is considered the social norm of the referenced culture.

As for science and religion, I also cannot agree. Science and rationality seeks to explain the world around us. Unfortunately, the scientific process is a slow one, and it is rare that all the questions we pose will be answered in our lifetime (or even several generations from now). It is limited by our current technology, tools, and money and can be slowed or even stopped by cultural and political forces (i.e. stem cell research).

Humans are impatient beings with extremely short lifespans (compared to the timespans of the universe or even our planet), so it is only natural that, in our ignorance in ancient times, we created myths and gods to explain the world around us. These myths attempted to explain everything from the creation of the universe and our purpose in it to more mundane topics such as the weather. However, as we grow out of our ignorance and our tools of observation increase in accuracy, it is no surprise that we find that most (if not all) of these myths are false. For example, we find that our existence is the result of billions of years of evolution, not a god using his magic over seven days. We find that bad weather is not caused by the wrath of god(s), but by purely natural causes (gravitational and rotational forces, the cooling of the planet, etc).

The latest example of the clash between rationality and religion is the debate over homosexuality. Many religious people consider homosexuality to be sinful, not because it is harmful to society (and it is not, mind you), but merely because the bible can support their own bigoted and ignorant views. The idea that we have control over our sexuality (i.e. we decide whether we are gay or straight), is factually false, yet such facts will be rejected by many religious people because it contradicts their religious texts (similarly to how racial equality and freedom from slavery contradicted many passages in the bible).

Make no mistake, this clash exists and it will continue to exist until we reject the authority given to our holy texts and religious leaders. Until then, many people will believe ancient myths written by ingorant people over more rational and fact-based views.

Ah, the non-overlapping magesteria, or NOMA argument. The term was coined by Stephen Jay Gould.

There are many problems here. Religion can and often -does- step on science's turf. From creationism museum tours to the beleif that it's okay to blow up your baby in a crowded restaraunt because the baby will go to paradise and the others will go to helll; these are ideas that have a measurable physical effect on our world. And those effects, having been measured, are negative.

Zealotry -is- a problem. As has been pointed out, however, Zealotry is a default religious position. PASSION, on the other hand, is not inherently bad. If my child's teacher is forced to tell my kids that evolution and "intelligent design" are both equally valid ideas that explain the diversity of life on Earth, I am going to fight againt it, and passionately. This does not make me a zealot, it makes me concerned that the irrational claims of religious people are HURTING my child's development.

But I do understand The_Monk's argument here. The problem is absolute certainty. Doubt and skepticsm are better places to stand, but when our world is being damaged by the claims of religion, the NOMA argument breaks down and we must defend ourselves. The true problem is "faith": believing something is absolutely the truth while having no evidence for it, and basing your life upon these beliefs, no matter how many times you are proven to be wrong.

That's the best response thus far. Why did I give in so easily?

Hah! I wish I was so diabolically creative.

Truth is, I found many of the comments an interesting read. However that was not my reasoning behind posting this. I've enjoyed Maher since before he got tossed from ABC late night programming for his inappropriate September 11 comment.

If those orphans and widows (I almost wrote windows) are vampires and you visit them in broad daylight to drive a stake through their hearts, well ... that does sound like some good old ultra-violence and maybe a dash of hatred.