Yes, I’m pretty sure even Maher has a collection of semi-organized beliefs in his head that ultimately have no empirical root. Many have tried (and failed) to pass the test of a creating a world-view (with any coherence) that rests firmly on empirical foundations. I try it at least once a year. Then I quit and go get a dark beer with friends.

But regardless, Maher gives me uncomfortable chuckles – a kind of intellectual salsa that’s just a little too hot for my tongue. And I keep going back. However, I do hope religionists aren’t his only target. It would be a shame if his intellect only had one target now that he’s picking up the Moore/Spurlock torch.

From close observation of religious people, from heated discussions with them, from research into religions and the philosophies thereof I have come to the following unflattering observations:

religious people are generally overly sensitive whenever you probe them on why they believe what they believe. They get about as far as God works in mysterious ways and when you challenge that, and even if you are doing so as politely and congenially as possible, things tend to turn ugly.

religious people are generally not detail-oriented. They like their ideas black and white, they like the word ‘faith’ to be a get out of jail free card for any impending critique. The idea of ‘faith’ is an impediment to thinking outside of it, whereas someone not yet indoctrinated can look at things from different angles, there is a tendency for knee-jerk reactions to call it faith and be done with it.

Religion gives too much authority to the clouded judgment of half-glimpsed hunches, a rumbling stomach at an opportune time could be misconstrued as divine intervention.

harsh maybe but I am a bit tired of the baby gloves I normally have to use.