RELIGULOUS--Bill Maher

[OctoberMist]

boagie said:

Try to stay on topic guys, I know Maher's is a rub for believers.

It's simply an inaccurate and illogical portrayal of religion. Just as athiesm is a extremely varied body of belief, so too is religion.

As far as my response to OctoberMist, did you hear me give him a hard time?

LOL - Is that what you did? No offense, but I don't think so. You were very neutral in your response, actually, and you didn't really address any of my arguments.

I would interpret his finding god through the practice of humility and compassion as coming to his full humanity, the fact that he wishes to infer an imaginary friend in high office, to me is simply his preference for the irrational, but Yeah, he was not the topic was he!

Well, let's discuss this, shall we?

How do you feel that I am being irrational?

[boagie]

OctoberMist,

Well, this is just what your fellow believers wish, to side track the topic. However, briefly, you stated that through the excerise of humility and compassion that you came to realize god, did you not, correct me if I am putting words into your mouth. I take it this was a very good feeling, and I stated that what I thought had occured was that you came to a full realization of your own humanity. If from this you have concluded that there is a supernatural being pulling your strings, then I would have to say that is irrational, you cannot point to the object of your statement, thus it is irrational, its based on a good feeling.

[OctoberMist]

Before I reply, let me say this: I'm a former atheist of 17 years (as an educated adult). I've spent over 10 years on online forums defending atheism against all manner of theists, including rabid Evangelical Christians, Southern Baptists, Orthodox Jews, Sunni Moslems, and many others.

I have a very healthy respect for Atheism. However, I do not have a respect for those who do not use logic in the arguments. The easiest way to disprove religious folks, I've found, is in their use of logical fallacies. And, by the same token, when I encountered fellow atheists who used logical fallacies, I blasted them into ashes as well. I'm quite good at it, I must say.

I feel like you are patronizing me in your responses (for whatever reason; possilbly because I'm a prolithic new user and you don't want to anger me, though I could be wrong). Pehaps I am mistaken as to your tone or motives, but in case I am not, I'd like to say: Please don't blow any sunshine up my ass to be patronizing. -- Believe me, I can take whatever you can dish out.

So lets's get down to business, shall we?

boagie said:

Well, this is just what your fellow believers wish, to side track the topic.

Exactly who are my "fellow believers"? -- In your mind are all theists in the same boat? -- I assure that they are not.

I subscribe to NO religion and certainly not Judeo-Christianity (I have strong philosophical disagreements with this faith...)

Please do not make generalizations about me. My beliefs are my own.

However, briefly, you stated that through the excerise of humility and compassion that you came to realize god, did you not, correct me if I am putting words into your mouth.

That is not an accurate portrayal of my beliefs; thanks for asking.

As an atheist I had come to see that humility and compassion were in the best interest of my personal spirituality - long before I discovered what I call God. Several years, to be exact.

I take it this was a very good feeling, and I stated that what I thought had occured was that you came to a full realization of your own humanity.

Fair enough.

If from this you have concluded that there is a supernatural being pulling your strings, then I would have to say that is irrational,

No offense, but you're on the verge of making an Ad Hominem statement here: you are classifying my psychological state as "irrational".

I would like to know on what basis you make such statements.

you cannot point to the object of your statement, thus it is irrational, its based on a good feeling.

That is completely inaccurate; you are making an assumption.

In my post, "Discovering God", I describe both physical and mental and emtional responses. Moreover, I feel that you are abusing semantics by focusing on the term "feeling" as the basis of your argument.

I think we can both conclude that the word "feeling" does not merely describe the physical. For example, if a bum on the street asks you for money, you get a [as used in common parlance] "feeling" about whether their story is legitimate or not. I doubt that this is a *physical* "feeling"; it is more of a sense of whether or not their story checks out.

However, I'll be your huckleberry and take on the argument of "feelings" as not being rational:

What about love? -- Does it not exist because it is merely a "feeling"? If one has good "physical sensations" when they are with someone they love, are they automatically "irrational"? -- That's your argument.

It seems to me that you are taking a very literal (what I would call fundamentalist) interpretation of psychosomatic responses in general.

[Note: I hope I didn't offend you; I speak plainly. I would ask you that when you reply to me, don't pull your punches (because I certainly won't!). Just say what you think. If I have misjudged you, I apologize.]

[boagie]

OctoberMist,

Well you have convinced me of your prowess. I don't believe I woud be any match in locking horns with you. I however will always believe that religion in general is irrational, in that there is nothing tangiable about its claims. You want to compare it to the feeling of love, well most of the time at least we can identity the object of that feeling. I complimented you on your lack of emotional response earlier, and for that the Christians jumped all over me. They are upset at me posting this Bill Maher's thing. I stated earlier that I wanted the response pro and con on the movie, and a storm of Christian outrage greeted me, none of them having seen the movie. Well it does not look like this topic is going to fly anyway, you are the first one to responed whom has seen the movie.

Your prowess itself would never convince me that you were correct, just over powering. The reason I posted this topic was that I believe that humor is the only way to deal with believers, I find Bill Mahers delightfully honest. There are a few associates here that have honed there skills at defending the faith, and do not believe that one should be able to generalize about Christians or Christianity why then do they bring it to a forum like this. You give your opinion on the movie, and that is what the topic asked for, I had no problem with your response. I asked for both pro and con, but there are these very very emotional Christians salivating for a scrap, all I ask is that they direct it at Bill Mahers!!

[Solace]

I complimented you on your lack of emotional response earlier, and for that the Christians jumped all over me. They are upset at me posting this Bill Maher's thing.

A couple of mistakes here, boagie, which I will point out since I'm the first person who responded to your compliment about a lack of emotion in response, so the natural assumption is that you are talking about me here. First, I am not a Christian. Second, I have nothing against Bill Maher or his movie. Fact is if I lived any closer than 300 km to the nearest theater I'd have gone to see it by now. So what's your excuse for not having seen it yet? You make this thread about the movie, and you constantly ask that people only post if they've watched the movie, yet you keep posting and you haven't seen the movie.

But this is the continued hypocrisy in your statements, boagie. Which is what I was trying to point out with my last post. You, of all people, have no right to extol posting without emotion when your own posts are full of emotion and are almost always about knocking down other people. Instead of letting that sink through your thick skull you decided to dismiss it as me trying to sidetrack the discussion. As if I'm going to somehow magically highjack everyone's attention and then *poof* the movie will just disappear from theaters.

[boagie]

Solace,

I admit my sympathies lie with Bill Maher, but outside of that I should be able to post this topic and ask people to respond with their pro and cons, you wish to dictate that I must see the movie, no I don't, I perhaps will never see the movie. I asked people who HAVE seen the movie to contribute, thumbs up thumbs down, what are you doing here?

[Solace]

The same thing you are, boagie, putting in my two cents where it isn't required.

[boagie]

Anyone else seen the movie?




Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark is the third in an annual series of conversations: an ongoing project to foster and promote the use of reason in formulating social policy. This year, we asked participants to propose a Candle -- a potential solution to a problem that they have identified in their area of expertise or informed passion.

In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote:
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

At The Science Network, we embrace scientific meliorism (last year's meeting, after all, was entitled Enlightenment 2.0). We support science in its search for solutions. Can we better understand the neural underpinnings of human nature, our decision-making processes, the dynamics of trust and fear and human flourishing?

This U.S. election year, when science and reason in the nation's deliberations have been repeatedly challenged as irrelevant or elitist, and science seems to be estranged from society, Sagan's words sound prophetic -- an alarm call. Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark is our response.

[OctoberMist]

boagie said:

Well you have convinced me of your prowess.

Perhaps too well, because once again you did not respond directly to my arguments.

I don't believe I woud be any match in locking horns with you. I however will always believe that religion in general is irrational, in that there is nothing tangiable about its claims.

No offense to you Boagie, but you've mentioned this several times without giving any argument whatsoever as to why you believe it.

I hope I don't offend you by saying so, but I'm curious: should I write you off as some ignorant redneck who is incapable of forumulating an argument to support their beliefs?

Are you merely someone who arbitrarily disagrees out of xenophobia or are you someone who can actually support their position with reasons?

-- Inquiring minds want to know.

You want to compare it to the feeling of love, well most of the time at least we can identity the object of that feeling.

I don't "want to compare it"; I do compare it. You didn't answer my question. Why not try responding directly (I assume, as a moderator you do know how to use the quote feature) instead of using euphanimsms and condensations of my words?

Are you afraid to respond to me directly? -- Just curious.

I complimented you on your lack of emotional response earlier, and for that the Christians jumped all over me.

That's their problem; it has nothing to do with you and me.

They are upset at me posting this Bill Maher's thing.

I say this now before you and them: Any Christian who is mad that Boagie posted this thread is a fool. Challenge me on this issue if you dare.

I stated earlier that I wanted the response pro and con on the movie, and a storm of Christian outrage greeted me, none of them having seen the movie.

Which is absurd.

Case in point: When the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out, the Christian (especially the Roman Catholic) church was outraged. Yet, most of them had NEVER actually seen the movie. The movie was actually completely Pro-Christian and a very moving and apt portrayal of the message of Christ.

Now, I realize that the message of Religulous is not the same at all, but anybody who hasn't seen it is in no place to condemn it.

I have seen it and I do condemn it as illogical and inaccurate.

Your prowess itself would never convince me that you were correct, just over powering.

You challenge me to be humble, Boagie. Because here's what I have to say about that: your arguments are ridiculous. You assert that my debate prowess intimidates you, but you still feel that I am 'wrong'?

That's absurd. How would you know since you're not willing to debate me in the first place?

I apologize if I offend you, but you sound like a xenophobic redneck.

The reason I posted this topic was that I believe that humor is the only way to deal with believers, I find Bill Mahers delightfully honest.

Bill Mahers' arguments are completely illogical. It seems to me that you want to believe in Mahers position out of personal bias, not out of philosophical agreement. You seem to want to make massive generalizations about theism and religion, even if they are completely wrong.

That is the mark of fear and ignorance, in my book.

There are a few associates here that have honed there skills at defending the faith, and do not believe that one should be able to generalize about Christians or Christianity why then do they bring it to a forum like this.

Excuse me?

Have you logged on to this site recently? -- At the top it says:

"Science - Religion - Philosophy - Humanity"

Do you think that this site is only for you? -- Not according to it's banner.

You give your opinion on the movie, and that is what the topic asked for, I had no problem with your response. I asked for both pro and con, but there are these very very emotional Christians salivating for a scrap, all I ask is that they direct it at Bill Mahers!!

Well, Bill Mahers did not post here; you did.

And I have to say, in their defense, you are very adept at avoiding direct responses to arguments made.

Perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.........?

[Blazenarrow]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I am a regular viewer of Real Time with Bill Maher; his political show is one of the best on TV.

However, I do tire of the puerile treatment of religion. Even the renown scientist Richard Dawkins seems incapable of discussing religion in a mature fashion.

Bill Maher is obviously poorly educated on religion. If someone believes the Ark story as literally true, the person is a fundamentalist, even if Bill doesn't think so. What Bill fails to grasp is that he is correct to call the Bible mythology; if he understood this point, the rest of his criticisms would fall away and he could only criticize people with silly views about the Bible. John Stewart called Bill on some of his overextended arguments. Kudos to John.

What??

did you read this??


It seems like your major target in this movie are the religious extremists, those who belong to the fundamentalist camps of various different religions.
That’s not really true, that’s not really true. I mean, take Sen. Pryor — I don’t think he’d consider himself a fundamentalist. I think he’s like a majority of Americans. I mean, 60 percent of Americans believe the Noah’s ark story to be literally true. To me, that’s mainstream. When people say, “You’re going after extremists,” I say, well, to be religious at all is to be an extremist. It’s to be extremely irrational. Not that everybody believes in Noah’s ark, or the guy who lived to be 900 years old. But even to believe the central story of Christianity — a lot of people would say, “I’m not like those kooks out in Kansas who believe the Earth is 5,000 years old. But I do believe God has a son, who he sent down to earth on a suicide mission, and he said, ‘Hey, Jesus, I’m sending you on this suicide mission, but don’t worry, they can’t kill you because you’re really me.’ I, God the father — wink, wink — let’s split up the work! OK? Because there’s two of us, but not really! I’ll go down to Earth first and I’ll see if I can’t impregnate a Palestinian woman so she can give birth to you.” It’s just as silly a story. We’re just used to it.

I mean that is just SO true. I don't care what anyone says. Anyone who believes in a any of the fundamental religions currently in existence on earth, is irrational. The point he's making, is the CENTRAL idea to the christian religion in itself is a completely irrational concept.