• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Religulous

wolfgirl said:
I don't really like the term "non-religious" because it can too easily be taken to mean that you just aren't terribly religious. Like you don't go to church or read the bible, but you're still "normal" and believe in God like everyone else. You could say, "I'm non-religious" to someone and have them say, "Yeah, me too. I hardly ever go to church. God's going to smack me down one day. Ha ha."
Click to expand...

I don't think that there's any term that can't be subject to mis-interpretation. And if it's important, I will specify that I don't believe in god(s), not just that I don't go to church. But as it is, many people, even those who should know better, assign all sorts of characteristics to 'atheist' that are unnecessary, in order to advance their own agenda. I'd just rather not have to deal with this in real life, when all I usually want to convey is that I don't do or believe in the same things that you do.

I prefer that my belief (or lack of) be in no uncertain terms. I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

But now that your lack of belief is conveyed in no uncertain terms, you have also conveyed that you are arrogant, certain that our knowledge of the universe is complete, intolerant of anyone who is religious, and unwilling to entertain the slightest bit of speculation.

I don't mind challenging what I see as mis-perceptions in an appropriate forum, such as the JREF forum. But the opportunity isn't really there in most every day situations, so I'd rather try to keep it simple. I don't know if I'm a coward or prudent, though. :)

Linda
 
KingMerv00 said:
I'll probably watch it but I have a bad feeling it will claim that "religious" and "stupid" are synonymous.

I don't think he has really researched the issue much...he is apparently unfamiliar with agnostic atheism. Mahr was on the Daily Show recently and badmouthed atheists because he thought atheism was based on certainty.
Click to expand...


Isn't it?


M.
 
fagin said:
Wouldn't call it badmouthing. He simply said he doesn't like 'absolutes'. On either side. He said in all honesty he doesn't know for sure, but made it pretty clear where he stands. The point he made was he let people speak for themselves, and the lack of logic/idiocy of their statements and beliefs would be self evident.
Thought he was pretty funny - it is a comedy show (although gives me most of my insight? into American politics), and I'm sure a lot of Americans will now be praying for his soul/for a big lightning bolt to strike. Except doubtful they were watching.
Click to expand...

Bill's got his own "woo-spot." It's probably based on the pharmaceutical industry's behavior, with the collusion of the medical profession. But I could be mistaken. All I know is that he doesn't think much of either profession.


M.
 
KingMerv00 said:
:rolleyes:

For the 80 trillionth time...it is not.

See?

Edit: It is possible you are making a semantic joke.
Click to expand...


You're probably right, but he's alluding to those who know without a doubt and categorically state that there's nothing to these (religious) ideas, and who are just as dogmatic about their views as the staunchest fundamentalist. His position, if I understand it, is that there's no evidence, and so he doesn't know. It's a less arrogant position, perhaps.

ETA: Personally, I am just as fatigued by those that absolutely know there's no god as by those who absolutely know that there is a god. Neither position aids understanding nor rapprochement.


M.
 
Last edited:
Moochie said:
Bill's got his own "woo-spot." It's probably based on the pharmaceutical industry's behavior, with the collusion of the medical profession. But I could be mistaken. All I know is that he doesn't think much of either profession.


M.
Click to expand...


You are being kind.
Maher does not believe in the Germ Theory of Medicine, and thinks all illness and disease is due to bad diet:jaw-dropp
He has called modern medicine more or less a giant fraud,including the old,old, "Pasteur took back the germ theory on his deathbed" malarky.
He is an active supporter of PETA.
I would hardly call Maher a poster boy for rational though when he pushes woo as dangerous as that. If it was something less dangerous ,such as a belief in UFOs, I would not mind so much but a complete rejection of Modern Medicine....that is not just stupid, that is freaking dangerous.
Understand, this is not just criticism of the medical system in the US,but a denial of the science behind modern medicine.
In fact, I think it is about as bad and dangerous as Woo gets.
I think we have a couple of threads going in Science on Maher.
 
Last edited:
As evidenced on this board, you can tell a Christian dozens of times that atheism is not a religion or belief system, but just a lack of belief, and they will ignore it, or just fail to comprehend it.

So I call myself an atheist, and don't worry about their wacky interpetations, even the one where they claim that all atheists are secret Believers, and just being rebellious.
 
Am I the only one who has seen it? I loved it. It was hilarious.

Maher is not a skeptic. One shouldn't confuse his willingness to challenge the establishment with our version of skepticism. He has come to his agnosticism through a skeptical view of religion, but the principles of evidence and scientific inquiry escape him. He challenges authority just fine, but I don't think he has quite figured out how one gets to scientific truths.

Maher's interview on The Daily Show gave an accurate description of the movie. But the movie was well done. I'm not sure why anyone would draw a negative conclusion about the movie from the interview. This was not the opposite of "Expelled" or anything of the kind. He did point out the harm religion has done and got a tad preachy in the final few minutes of the movie. But, hey, there are suicide bombers and End Times preachers running around right now, so it is hard to say that wasn't justified.

He included his own religious experiences and interviewed his mother and sister about their family experiences throughout the movie. He just points out the lack of logic and the incredulity in many religious beliefs, but I don't think he tries to make believers look stupid. Rather, he tries to point out the hypocrisy and irrationality of current and past religious beliefs. But that is what it is. It's just that not everyone wants to examine those facts.

I disagree with a lot of what Maher believes so the fact he thinks my atheism is not any better than someone else's theism doesn't bother me. I don't respect all his opinions anyway. But I still like a lot of what he has to say and he does do some funny stuff.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You are being kind.
Maher does not believe in the Germ Theory of Medicine, and thinks all illness and disease is due to bad diet:jaw-dropp
He has called modern medicine more or less a giant fraud,including the old,old, "Pasteur took back the germ theory on his deathbed" malarky.
He is an active supporter of PETA.
I would hardly call Maher a poster boy for rational though when he pushes woo as dangerous as that. If it was something less dangerous ,such as a belief in UFOs, I would not mind so much but a complete rejection of Modern Medicine....that is not just stupid, that is freaking dangerous.
Understand, this is not just criticism of the medical system in the US,but a denial of the science behind modern medicine.
In fact, I think it is about as bad and dangerous as Woo gets.
I think we have a couple of threads going in Science on Maher.
Click to expand...

I'm glad he is not an atheist, he could give us a bad name with idiocy like that.
icon6.gif
 
skeptigirl said:
Am I the only one who has seen it? I loved it. It was hilarious.

Maher is not a skeptic. One shouldn't confuse his willingness to challenge the establishment with our version of skepticism. He has come to his agnosticism through a skeptical view of religion, but the principles of evidence and scientific inquiry escape him. He challenges authority just fine, but I don't think he has quite figured out how one gets to scientific truths.

Maher's interview on The Daily Show gave an accurate description of the movie. But it was well done. I'm not sure why anyone would draw a negative conclusion about the movie from the interview. This was not the opposite of "Expelled" or anything of the kind. He did point out the harm religion has done and got a tad preachy in the final few minutes of the movie. But, hey, there are suicide bombers and End Times preachers running around right now, so it is hard to say that wasn't justified.

He included his own religious experiences and interviewed his mother and sister about their family experiences throughout the movie. He just points out the lack of logic and the incredulity in many religious beliefs, but I don't think he tries to make believers look stupid. Rather, he tries to point out the hypocrisy and irrationality of current and past religious beliefs. But that is what it is. It's just that not everyone wants to examine those facts.
Click to expand...


There's a review/interview in the current Salon, as well.


M.
 
Maher is not a skeptic. One shouldn't confuse his willingness to challenge the establishment with our version of skepticism. He has come to his agnosticism through a skeptical view of religion, but the principles of evidence and scientific inquiry escape him. He challenges authority just fine, but I don't think he has quite figured out how one gets to scientific truths.
Click to expand...

I think his opinions on medicine show that quite clearly.
 
Marcus said:
I'm glad he is not an atheist, he could give us a bad name with idiocy like that.[qimg]http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon6.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Maher should be a textbook example that just because you reject religon, does not mean that you can't fall for woo, bigtime.
 
Moochie said:
You're probably right, but he's alluding to those who know without a doubt and categorically state that there's nothing to these (religious) ideas, and who are just as dogmatic about their views as the staunchest fundamentalist. His position, if I understand it, is that there's no evidence, and so he doesn't know. It's a less arrogant position, perhaps.
Click to expand...

In context, I believe he was referring to atheism in general. In one breath he said he was not an atheist and in the next he said atheism is too certain for his taste.

ETA: Personally, I am just as fatigued by those that absolutely know there's no god as by those who absolutely know that there is a god. Neither position aids understanding nor rapprochement.
Click to expand...

I have never met an atheist who said they were certain there was no God...and I've met Christopher Hitchens. Is it really a common occurrence for you?
 
Moochie said:
ETA: Personally, I am just as fatigued by those that absolutely know there's no god as by those who absolutely know that there is a god. Neither position aids understanding nor rapprochement.
Click to expand...

You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). I wonder if you could name a philosopher or prominent public figure who holds that position? In my view it's an almost empty category; theists and self-described "agnostics" love to impute that view to atheists, but there's hardly a single real atheist who espouses it.

The atheists I know personally all agree that it is possible that some kind of God exists, they simply hold that the god-hypothesis has, as yet, no supporting evidence. They're all happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for a deity's existence--just as they are happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for the existence of unicorns or leprechauns or magic. What they don't see is why nobody gets accused of "arrogance" or "rudeness" for saying "unicorns are mythical animals" or "there's no such thing as magic" (when it is clearly shorthand for "all the evidence we have suggests that unicorns are mythical animals" and "so far as we can tell there is no such thing as magic") but immediately get jumped if they say "god doesn't exist" when that is clearly shorthand for "to the best of our knowledge god doesn't exist."

Sorry to rehash a done-to-death talking point. But the fact that despite being done-to-death people keep on bringing up these near-mythical "absolutist" atheists may be sufficient excuse.
 
Yoink said:
You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). ...
Click to expand...
Either that is me or there are 2 of us. :D
 
skeptigirl said:
Either that is me or there are 2 of us. :D
Click to expand...
You know what, I can't remember who it was--I remember the argument, but not the interlocutor. So...you would say that you are 100% absolutely certain that it is impossible that our universe could be the creation of a deity? Would you say that you have evidence that that is the case, that the concept of a deity is inherently self-contradictory, or that it's just an article of faith?
 
Yoink said:
You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). I wonder if you could name a philosopher or prominent public figure who holds that position? In my view it's an almost empty category; theists and self-described "agnostics" love to impute that view to atheists, but there's hardly a single real atheist who espouses it.

The atheists I know personally all agree that it is possible that some kind of God exists, they simply hold that the god-hypothesis has, as yet, no supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

<snipped for brevity>


That's my understanding of Maher's view. I stand to be corrected, as ever.


M.
 
Moochie said:
<snipped for brevity>


That's my understanding of Maher's view. I stand to be corrected, as ever.


M.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that's not the same thing as claiming that you "absolutely know there's no god" is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom