The people were christian, muslim, and jewish. There was one thing about scientologists and one thing about some strange pot religion, but it was focusing on the three abrahamic ones, specifically.
I don't blame him though, considering that those are the major three in America.
We don't know anything. We never have. The more you can become grounded in the fact that we don't know shit as a race, the better a person you can become from rising up from that awareness. Scrawl your own design on this blank world.
Of course you know this is a belief held (though slightly different) by modern engaged Buddhism?
Let's look at some of Tich Nhat Hanh's precepts eh? He warns against any belief in "changeless, absolute truth" and "narrow-minded[ness]...bound to present views." He also says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth" And "Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."
You are right man! All religion is so insulting to our intelligence!
I said most, because i'm honestly not informed on the doctrine of every religion out there, but thank you for showing me that. I didn't know anything about Tich Nhat Hanh or any of that stuff.
I said most, because i'm honestly not informed on the doctrine of every religion out there, but thank you for showing me that. I didn't know anything about Tich Nhat Hanh or any of that stuff.
Fair enough dude. Also, sorry if I came across as a dick in that post. I've been writing a paper all day so I kind of vented on you there, my apologies.
Unfortunately none of the panel was quick enough or mean enough to say "Look Bill, the proof is in the pudding, you're an unfunny douche who makes bigoted sweeping generalizations, but you still have a television show, clearly this isn't merit based"
Also, I would note that one of the most significant debates on this board, that between agnostic and atheist, is essentially ignored.
Again, I don't blame him, because 99.9% of people will go "What the hell are you talking about!?" but just to note for this board, he's essentially grouping all irreligious people together.
Unfortunately none of the panel was quick enough or mean enough to say "Look Bill, the proof is in the pudding, you're an unfunny douche who makes bigoted sweeping generalizations, but you still have a television show, clearly this isn't merit based"
I disagree. I think he's a funny douche who makes bigoted sweeping generalizations.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't think Sullivan really put Maher in his place, but Maher realized this wasn't going anywhere, that it seemed to be genuinely upsetting Will.I.Am and that the topic really needed to move on. I've heard Maher's response to Sullivan's assertions that Civil Rights Movement, etc. wouldn't have happened without religion. It boils down to: religion in those cases was only integral in that it was a central and focal meeting place. If tons of people had been meeting in buildings to play chess every weekend, the same thing could have happened. I don't know how much I agree with that, as the stories in the bible of the Jews fleeing Egypt were very inspiring for the Civil Rights Movement, but I certainly understand Maher's point. It easily could have been another story based on rising from oppression and it easily could have started in bingo halls, poetry readings, novel discussion meetings etc. The thing is, it's all pure speculation and hard to say what really would have happened if something else had been substituted for religion.
A "story based on rising from oppression"? You mean, like, Ghandi's Indian independence movement? The one that MLK based his philosophy of non-violent resistance on?
Yeah. Nothing religious about Gandhi.
Gandhi was a horrible racist whose presence complicated an already strong, and very much well on track independence movement with religious demands and other such nonsense.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't think Sullivan really put Maher in his place, but Maher realized this wasn't going anywhere, that it seemed to be genuinely upsetting Will.I.Am and that the topic really needed to move on. I've heard Maher's response to Sullivan's assertions that Civil Rights Movement, etc. wouldn't have happened without religion. It boils down to: religion in those cases was only integral in that it was a central and focal meeting place. If tons of people had been meeting in buildings to play chess every weekend, the same thing could have happened. I don't know how much I agree with that, as the stories in the bible of the Jews fleeing Egypt were very inspiring for the Civil Rights Movement, but I certainly understand Maher's point. It easily could have been another story based on rising from oppression and it easily could have started in bingo halls, poetry readings, novel discussion meetings etc. The thing is, it's all pure speculation and hard to say what really would have happened if something else had been substituted for religion.
A "story based on rising from oppression"? You mean, like, Ghandi's Indian independence movement? The one that MLK based his philosophy of non-violent resistance on?
Yeah. Nothing religious about Gandhi.
Gandhi was a horrible racist whose presence complicated an already strong, and very much well on track independence movement with religious demands and other such nonsense.
So fuck Gandhi.
What specifically are you talking about here? I've heard a few claims about Ghandi - I'd like to learn about what you're referring to.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't think Sullivan really put Maher in his place, but Maher realized this wasn't going anywhere, that it seemed to be genuinely upsetting Will.I.Am and that the topic really needed to move on. I've heard Maher's response to Sullivan's assertions that Civil Rights Movement, etc. wouldn't have happened without religion. It boils down to: religion in those cases was only integral in that it was a central and focal meeting place. If tons of people had been meeting in buildings to play chess every weekend, the same thing could have happened. I don't know how much I agree with that, as the stories in the bible of the Jews fleeing Egypt were very inspiring for the Civil Rights Movement, but I certainly understand Maher's point. It easily could have been another story based on rising from oppression and it easily could have started in bingo halls, poetry readings, novel discussion meetings etc. The thing is, it's all pure speculation and hard to say what really would have happened if something else had been substituted for religion.
A "story based on rising from oppression"? You mean, like, Ghandi's Indian independence movement? The one that MLK based his philosophy of non-violent resistance on?
Yeah. Nothing religious about Gandhi.
Yep, because that's exactly what I said, Scarecrow. Don't worry, we'll get to the Wizard soon enough.
@ Hilgar: Yes, MLK did base the movements modus operandi on Ghandi's principles of nonviolence. Which is a much better idea, because in the bible there's a bunch of genocide that goes on after the Jews are freed and given the 10 Commandments. While the principles were very much guided from Ghandi, the actual words used to rally the people was that of the Jews fleeing Egypt. I'm not disputing the influence of Ghandi, but I'd be willing to bet not as many people would have rallied so readily behind MLK if he had been quoting Ghandi rather than quoting Moses and Jesus.
Bill Maher is a dick. And it pisses me off more hearing from a dick that those who believe there's an afterlife are the ones causing all the worlds ills. Nobody knows, absolutely nobody, what happens when you die (or before you're born for that matter), and trying to remove a person's faith is a dick move. Which is probably why he's doing it. Because he is a dick.
The know-it-alls don't really know it all. They're guessing, just like the rest of us.
Bill Maher is a dick. And it pisses me off more hearing from a dick that those who believe there's an afterlife are the ones causing all the worlds ills. Nobody knows, absolutely nobody, what happens when you die (or before you're born for that matter), and trying to remove a person's faith is a dick move. Which is probably why he's doing it. Because he is a dick.
The know-it-alls don't really know it all. They're guessing, just like the rest of us.
That's what he's saying..."we don't know for sure, stop saying you know for sure, moron"
Bill Maher is a dick. And it pisses me off more hearing from a dick that those who believe there's an afterlife are the ones causing all the worlds ills. Nobody knows, absolutely nobody, what happens when you die (or before you're born for that matter), and trying to remove a person's faith is a dick move. Which is probably why he's doing it. Because he is a dick.
The know-it-alls don't really know it all. They're guessing, just like the rest of us.
That's what he's saying..."we don't know for sure, stop saying you know for sure, moron"
That is what he says after someone says "wow, you're a douche". That is not what he says initially.
all the charity work that religious groups do should be more than enough reason to keep them around. sure there are bad things that religious people have done but there are also good things.
i dont see how people can look at any organization that provides aid to the poor and helpless along with hope and purpose for those people who choose to believe and say that it is evil because they are deluding people to believe a fairy tale or because bad people use it as an excuse to do bad things. bad people do bad things regardless of their excuse and sometimes a fairy tale is better than the reality of working for the next 30 years at a dead end job to pay off a small crappy house and then retire and die.
let people have their fairy tale. some people don't want to take the red pill.
Bill Maher is a dick. And it pisses me off more hearing from a dick that those who believe there's an afterlife are the ones causing all the worlds ills. Nobody knows, absolutely nobody, what happens when you die (or before you're born for that matter), and trying to remove a person's faith is a dick move. Which is probably why he's doing it. Because he is a dick.
The know-it-alls don't really know it all. They're guessing, just like the rest of us.
That's what he's saying..."we don't know for sure, stop saying you know for sure, moron"
That is what he says after someone says "wow, you're a douche". That is not what he says initially.
Is that in the movie? I haven't seen it yet, but that's the message I got out of what I've read and seen about it.
Bill Maher is a dick. And it pisses me off more hearing from a dick that those who believe there's an afterlife are the ones causing all the worlds ills. Nobody knows, absolutely nobody, what happens when you die (or before you're born for that matter), and trying to remove a person's faith is a dick move. Which is probably why he's doing it. Because he is a dick.
The know-it-alls don't really know it all. They're guessing, just like the rest of us.
That's what he's saying..."we don't know for sure, stop saying you know for sure, moron"
That is what he says after someone says "wow, you're a douche". That is not what he says initially.
Is that in the movie? I haven't seen it yet, but that's the message I got out of what I've read and seen about it.
It is mildly ironic that he is absolutely certain that it is impossible to be certain. And it's a fact that seems to totally escape him.
It's fine, and should be common, to approach religion or any idea or belief with a dose of skepticism. I think even among the devout of most major religions you'll find a common belief that faith is wonderful; blind faith is at best destructive and dangerous...at worst...well history has enough instances of that without going into much detail. It is beyond my understanding how anyone can have total faith in any belief or doctrine they've never questioned. It is not beyond my understanding how faith and belief can enrich a life and improve your outlook in life. But if you've never sat down and really looked at what you've been taught, what your faith is rooted in, how can you truly understand what it is you're espousing to believe?
The problem with Maher is that he doesn't recognize any benefit derived from faith or belief; even though his narrow minded view that these are things completely relegated to religion totally undermines any point he might have had.
And there is the major problem with this movie. Because it treats religion as a whole with complete disregard and disdain, without the slightest bit of respect, it is completely meaningless aside from what someone stated earlier in the thread; anti-theist porn.
This isn't Dogma. It's not a satirical look at a religion from someone who is trying to come to grips with teachings and things he or she doesn't understand or doesn't agree with. It's not treating the subject with the slightest bit of value but instead is saying that it is worthless and in fact completely contrary to the progression of mankind (this is literally Maher's perspective). It will spark no discussion on religion; actually it will serve the complete opposite purpose that should be sought in producing a dialogue on religion: It will make those who are offended more closed off and unwilling to discuss or analyze their faith, and it will make those who already adhere to Mahers perspective to cement their disgust and hate of religion and those who are religious.
It is mildly ironic that he is absolutely certain that it is impossible to be certain. And it's a fact that seems to totally escape him.
John Allen Paulus: “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.”
Can't comment on the rest of your post.
Oh, absolutely. And that's one major thing I think Maher just can't comprehend. "certainty" in regards to faith and belief can't be used in the same manner you'd say something like "I'm certain that I'm posting on an internet forum right now".
I can be absolutely "certain" in my beliefs in the afterlife; but it's not a firm immutable certainty you'd expect in an empirically proven manner. It's "certainty" based completely in the faith of your beliefs. Even the most devout and "certain" of any faith will always doubt, will always question.
It's just a comfort to have that certainty, no matter how uncertain it is. But I would say it is better to have something to focus on and something to fall back on, than to be totally adrift without any goal or purpose other than what you can see immediately in front of you.
Some would argue that this is weak, that this is simple minded, as Maher feels; I would disagree absolutely. I just had my first child two weeks ago; I do whatever I can whenever I can to comfort her and make sure she always has someone/thing there to give her peace and comfort. I find it rather depressing and a little sad that people think this is something that we're supposed to grow out of. Comfort and support does nothing but improve the lives of those who have it. Sure, maybe they're not as independent, but so what? There's nothing wrong with relying on others and having them rely on you.
Which, incidentally is the primary purpose of virtually all religions, which Maher so vehemently opposes.
EDIT: I realize this is bordering on getting off the topic of the movie and into religious debate; but I felt it was pertinent to the discussion of this specific movie.
It is mildly ironic that he is absolutely certain that it is impossible to be certain. And it's a fact that seems to totally escape him.
John Allen Paulus: “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.”
Can't comment on the rest of your post.
I can be absolutely "certain" in my beliefs in the afterlife; but it's not a firm immutable certainty you'd expect in an empirically proven manner. It's "certainty" based completely in the faith of your beliefs. Even the most devout and "certain" of any faith will always doubt, will always question.
.
...No, they won't. Sure there are many who question their faith, but there are some who do not. Have you ever heard of fundamentalists? There are people who believe without a doubt ever. That is supposed to be what Bill Maher is making his movie against, but I feel he misses his mark.
It is mildly ironic that he is absolutely certain that it is impossible to be certain. And it's a fact that seems to totally escape him.
John Allen Paulus: “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.”
Can't comment on the rest of your post.
I can be absolutely "certain" in my beliefs in the afterlife; but it's not a firm immutable certainty you'd expect in an empirically proven manner. It's "certainty" based completely in the faith of your beliefs. Even the most devout and "certain" of any faith will always doubt, will always question.
.
...No, they won't. Have you ever heard of fundamentalists? There are people who believe without a doubt ever. That is supposed to be what Bill Maher is making his movie against, but I feel he misses his mark.
Personally I make a distinction between "devout" and "fanatical". The latter of which is beyond reason and logic in any respect. Maybe it's hypocritical of me, but I tend to not clump fanatics into a specific religion; it totally demeans the particular religion. And I realize that sometimes (often?) these fanatics are in the leadership of said religions, but they don't define the religion. Or at least shouldn't. I'm totally aware of the impact they've had on religions though and the damage and destruction they can, have, and will have on the world in the name of a religion or a god and I don't dismiss that or diminish it's important. But to focus totally on that and to say that it's the non-fanatical that are the minority is just as dangerous and unfair. In fact, there's those who are fanatical against religions who are potentially just as dangerous.
Anyway, I'm not sure that I agree that Maher is only targeting fanatics. By his own admission he thinks any religion is counter productive to humanity. Even a little. Because if you're "certain" enough to make a religion you're already wrong. By his logic anyway.
It is mildly ironic that he is absolutely certain that it is impossible to be certain. And it's a fact that seems to totally escape him.
John Allen Paulus: “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.â€
Can't comment on the rest of your post.
I can be absolutely "certain" in my beliefs in the afterlife; but it's not a firm immutable certainty you'd expect in an empirically proven manner. It's "certainty" based completely in the faith of your beliefs. Even the most devout and "certain" of any faith will always doubt, will always question.
.
...No, they won't. Sure there are many who question their faith, but there are some who do not. Have you ever heard of fundamentalists? There are people who believe without a doubt ever. That is supposed to be what Bill Maher is making his movie against, but I feel he misses his mark.
naw even "fundamentalists" (which is usually a word used to encompass more people than it actually does) have questioned their faith at some point, its like a rite of passage in most religions. walk into the wilderness and be temped and then come back.
usually the people that are out there "spreading the word" because they are sure you need to believe as they do are the ones that found religion or were tempted by the evil ways of the world and then came back.
the people who were raised in a religion and continue to practice that religion without questioning it are probably not going to make any noise. whens the last time you saw an amish guy come out and tell you how to live your life? they sure are fundamental though.
fundamentalist and extremist/evangelist arent necissarily the same thing is what im saying.
I wasn't fond of Maher from the moment I saw him - he comes off as just empty-headed smarm for progressives, like a left-leaning Ann Coulter - but my dislike turned to bafflement when I found out he didn't believe in the germ theory of disease.
I mean...how is that even possible? He believes milk is what gets you sick! MILK! Milk and bad food and the evil machinations of Big Pharma!
I can make comments on religion. My supervisor, who is sitting right behind me, can probably make comments on religion. There are hundreds of people all around me that can get into a perfectly fine religious debate, and I doutbt as a single one of them is as terrible as Bill Maher.
I wasn't fond of Maher from the moment I saw him... but my dislike turned to bafflement when I found out he didn't believe in the germ theory of disease.
I mean...how is that even possible? He believes milk is what gets you sick! MILK! Milk and bad food and the evil machinations of Big Pharma!
Could you cite this? Checking the wiki article shows me some comments he made blaming poor diet, but if he actually doesn't believe in germs that is just delicious.
Bama on
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
I wasn't fond of Maher from the moment I saw him... but my dislike turned to bafflement when I found out he didn't believe in the germ theory of disease.
I mean...how is that even possible? He believes milk is what gets you sick! MILK! Milk and bad food and the evil machinations of Big Pharma!
Could you cite this? Checking the wiki article shows me some comments he made blaming poor diet, but if he actually doesn't believe in germs that is just delicious.
The most I could find was just that he's pro alternative medicines, anti-"big pharma" and has very strong ties with PETA. The believing in germ theory or not thing seems to be a point of some contention on the internet.
I wasn't fond of Maher from the moment I saw him... but my dislike turned to bafflement when I found out he didn't believe in the germ theory of disease.
I mean...how is that even possible? He believes milk is what gets you sick! MILK! Milk and bad food and the evil machinations of Big Pharma!
Could you cite this? Checking the wiki article shows me some comments he made blaming poor diet, but if he actually doesn't believe in germs that is just delicious.
Actually if I remember correctly, on his show this past week he said that regular milk caused a lot of health problems as opposed to alternative milk. I think it was the episode with ...Alec Baldwin, or the one before that which had Ralph Nader, Tim Daly and some republican chick.
Bill Maher is a smug, arrogant shit who's right a lot of the time.
Also I envy him and his perverted snorting-coke-off-a-Thai-hooker's-tits ways.
He isn't into Thais. He's all about the sistas. Which is why he sometimes acts like he's "down" with the blacks on his show... he doesn't realize that just because you can fuck someone it doesn't mean you get a pass. It's also why Amy Holmes leans back and away from Bill... he's always looking her up. Not that she's not hot (she is), but, damn dude, you're on TV.
I remember watching that episode. I don't remember anything about milk, but I do remember that Republican chick being slow witted as hell. She acted like she was half awake the entire show. She'd be quick to try and defend her party, but it's like she lost her train of thought so many times.
Bill Maher is such a total toolbag, it's gross. Not because of this movie, just in general. I fear he will totally fuel the notion that atheists are complete jerks.
And he even touts the "agnostic not atheist" argument.
I don't believe Maher believes in anything. He just parrots whatever he needs to to get Hollywood to show up on his show.
There's a reason he can't support 90% of his arguments with anything better than "Well, of course I'm right."
Secondly, he hasn't been funny in a long, long time. He's basically the left equivalent of Dennis Miller, a so-called comedian who thinks he's a prophet. The difference between Maher and a comedian like Jon Stewart or Lewis Black is Stewart and Black are trying to get laughs.
Maher is trying to get applause.
BubbaT on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited October 2008
You know, I remember a time when Dennis Miller was the left equivalent of Dennis Miller.
Having spent 7 of my very early and formative years in Catholic school I have to say; a lot of what is in the bible is just ridiculous. ASSUMING you take it literally ("as gospel" would be the funny way to put it).
Moses parted an ocean, huh? Wandered a desert for 40 years with a bunch of other jews? All this after advocating the slaughter of innocent first-borns (not to mention the pestilence and plague he called upon the egyptians AND the raining of frogs on their city).
Noah rounded up two of every animal and fit them on a boat. ...Really? I mean... really?
Some pretty funny stuff in the bible when you look at it objectively, which is how it was always meant to be seen. It's a book of fables, parables, meant to teach lessons about how to live your life. It's not meant to be a historical document (though I do believe that Jesus existed, was a self-proclaimed profit and was murdered by the Romans... I just don't think he was the son of God).
He's basically the left equivalent of Dennis Miller, a so-called comedian who thinks he's a prophet.
This is exactly what I've been saying! He's not as inflammatory as Ann Coulter, but he's a smug pseudo-intellectual, just like Dennis Miller.
I still want a cite on that germ theory thing. If he's into alternative medicine, sure, but denying germ theory is going to take some youtube-grade citing.
Posts
I don't blame him though, considering that those are the major three in America.
I said most, because i'm honestly not informed on the doctrine of every religion out there, but thank you for showing me that. I didn't know anything about Tich Nhat Hanh or any of that stuff.
Fair enough dude. Also, sorry if I came across as a dick in that post. I've been writing a paper all day so I kind of vented on you there, my apologies.
Unfortunately none of the panel was quick enough or mean enough to say "Look Bill, the proof is in the pudding, you're an unfunny douche who makes bigoted sweeping generalizations, but you still have a television show, clearly this isn't merit based"
Again, I don't blame him, because 99.9% of people will go "What the hell are you talking about!?" but just to note for this board, he's essentially grouping all irreligious people together.
I disagree. I think he's a funny douche who makes bigoted sweeping generalizations.
Gandhi was a horrible racist whose presence complicated an already strong, and very much well on track independence movement with religious demands and other such nonsense.
So fuck Gandhi.
What specifically are you talking about here? I've heard a few claims about Ghandi - I'd like to learn about what you're referring to.
Yep, because that's exactly what I said, Scarecrow. Don't worry, we'll get to the Wizard soon enough.
@ Hilgar: Yes, MLK did base the movements modus operandi on Ghandi's principles of nonviolence. Which is a much better idea, because in the bible there's a bunch of genocide that goes on after the Jews are freed and given the 10 Commandments. While the principles were very much guided from Ghandi, the actual words used to rally the people was that of the Jews fleeing Egypt. I'm not disputing the influence of Ghandi, but I'd be willing to bet not as many people would have rallied so readily behind MLK if he had been quoting Ghandi rather than quoting Moses and Jesus.
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
The know-it-alls don't really know it all. They're guessing, just like the rest of us.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
That's what he's saying..."we don't know for sure, stop saying you know for sure, moron"
That is what he says after someone says "wow, you're a douche". That is not what he says initially.
i dont see how people can look at any organization that provides aid to the poor and helpless along with hope and purpose for those people who choose to believe and say that it is evil because they are deluding people to believe a fairy tale or because bad people use it as an excuse to do bad things. bad people do bad things regardless of their excuse and sometimes a fairy tale is better than the reality of working for the next 30 years at a dead end job to pay off a small crappy house and then retire and die.
let people have their fairy tale. some people don't want to take the red pill.
Is that in the movie? I haven't seen it yet, but that's the message I got out of what I've read and seen about it.
It is mildly ironic that he is absolutely certain that it is impossible to be certain. And it's a fact that seems to totally escape him.
It's fine, and should be common, to approach religion or any idea or belief with a dose of skepticism. I think even among the devout of most major religions you'll find a common belief that faith is wonderful; blind faith is at best destructive and dangerous...at worst...well history has enough instances of that without going into much detail. It is beyond my understanding how anyone can have total faith in any belief or doctrine they've never questioned. It is not beyond my understanding how faith and belief can enrich a life and improve your outlook in life. But if you've never sat down and really looked at what you've been taught, what your faith is rooted in, how can you truly understand what it is you're espousing to believe?
The problem with Maher is that he doesn't recognize any benefit derived from faith or belief; even though his narrow minded view that these are things completely relegated to religion totally undermines any point he might have had.
And there is the major problem with this movie. Because it treats religion as a whole with complete disregard and disdain, without the slightest bit of respect, it is completely meaningless aside from what someone stated earlier in the thread; anti-theist porn.
This isn't Dogma. It's not a satirical look at a religion from someone who is trying to come to grips with teachings and things he or she doesn't understand or doesn't agree with. It's not treating the subject with the slightest bit of value but instead is saying that it is worthless and in fact completely contrary to the progression of mankind (this is literally Maher's perspective). It will spark no discussion on religion; actually it will serve the complete opposite purpose that should be sought in producing a dialogue on religion: It will make those who are offended more closed off and unwilling to discuss or analyze their faith, and it will make those who already adhere to Mahers perspective to cement their disgust and hate of religion and those who are religious.
And the problem is made worse by it.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Can't comment on the rest of your post.
good post Herpes Dude
Oh, absolutely. And that's one major thing I think Maher just can't comprehend. "certainty" in regards to faith and belief can't be used in the same manner you'd say something like "I'm certain that I'm posting on an internet forum right now".
I can be absolutely "certain" in my beliefs in the afterlife; but it's not a firm immutable certainty you'd expect in an empirically proven manner. It's "certainty" based completely in the faith of your beliefs. Even the most devout and "certain" of any faith will always doubt, will always question.
It's just a comfort to have that certainty, no matter how uncertain it is. But I would say it is better to have something to focus on and something to fall back on, than to be totally adrift without any goal or purpose other than what you can see immediately in front of you.
Some would argue that this is weak, that this is simple minded, as Maher feels; I would disagree absolutely. I just had my first child two weeks ago; I do whatever I can whenever I can to comfort her and make sure she always has someone/thing there to give her peace and comfort. I find it rather depressing and a little sad that people think this is something that we're supposed to grow out of. Comfort and support does nothing but improve the lives of those who have it. Sure, maybe they're not as independent, but so what? There's nothing wrong with relying on others and having them rely on you.
Which, incidentally is the primary purpose of virtually all religions, which Maher so vehemently opposes.
EDIT: I realize this is bordering on getting off the topic of the movie and into religious debate; but I felt it was pertinent to the discussion of this specific movie.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
...No, they won't. Sure there are many who question their faith, but there are some who do not. Have you ever heard of fundamentalists? There are people who believe without a doubt ever. That is supposed to be what Bill Maher is making his movie against, but I feel he misses his mark.
Personally I make a distinction between "devout" and "fanatical". The latter of which is beyond reason and logic in any respect. Maybe it's hypocritical of me, but I tend to not clump fanatics into a specific religion; it totally demeans the particular religion. And I realize that sometimes (often?) these fanatics are in the leadership of said religions, but they don't define the religion. Or at least shouldn't. I'm totally aware of the impact they've had on religions though and the damage and destruction they can, have, and will have on the world in the name of a religion or a god and I don't dismiss that or diminish it's important. But to focus totally on that and to say that it's the non-fanatical that are the minority is just as dangerous and unfair. In fact, there's those who are fanatical against religions who are potentially just as dangerous.
Anyway, I'm not sure that I agree that Maher is only targeting fanatics. By his own admission he thinks any religion is counter productive to humanity. Even a little. Because if you're "certain" enough to make a religion you're already wrong. By his logic anyway.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
naw even "fundamentalists" (which is usually a word used to encompass more people than it actually does) have questioned their faith at some point, its like a rite of passage in most religions. walk into the wilderness and be temped and then come back.
usually the people that are out there "spreading the word" because they are sure you need to believe as they do are the ones that found religion or were tempted by the evil ways of the world and then came back.
the people who were raised in a religion and continue to practice that religion without questioning it are probably not going to make any noise. whens the last time you saw an amish guy come out and tell you how to live your life? they sure are fundamental though.
fundamentalist and extremist/evangelist arent necissarily the same thing is what im saying.
-get paid an absurd amount of money.
not really....
thats like saying all OS designers are rich because bill gates is. the majority of soap box religious types dont get payed at all for doing it.
I mean...how is that even possible? He believes milk is what gets you sick! MILK! Milk and bad food and the evil machinations of Big Pharma!
I can make comments on religion. My supervisor, who is sitting right behind me, can probably make comments on religion. There are hundreds of people all around me that can get into a perfectly fine religious debate, and I doutbt as a single one of them is as terrible as Bill Maher.
It cost me $9000 to do it...
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
The most I could find was just that he's pro alternative medicines, anti-"big pharma" and has very strong ties with PETA. The believing in germ theory or not thing seems to be a point of some contention on the internet.
maher.Respect--;
It really stunned me because he seemed so clear-thinking in the movie. I guess that he just wants to crusade against ridiculous ideas, not wrong ones.
No one is perfect.
Actually if I remember correctly, on his show this past week he said that regular milk caused a lot of health problems as opposed to alternative milk. I think it was the episode with ...Alec Baldwin, or the one before that which had Ralph Nader, Tim Daly and some republican chick.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
And he even touts the "agnostic not atheist" argument.
There's a reason he can't support 90% of his arguments with anything better than "Well, of course I'm right."
Secondly, he hasn't been funny in a long, long time. He's basically the left equivalent of Dennis Miller, a so-called comedian who thinks he's a prophet. The difference between Maher and a comedian like Jon Stewart or Lewis Black is Stewart and Black are trying to get laughs.
Maher is trying to get applause.
Moses parted an ocean, huh? Wandered a desert for 40 years with a bunch of other jews? All this after advocating the slaughter of innocent first-borns (not to mention the pestilence and plague he called upon the egyptians AND the raining of frogs on their city).
Noah rounded up two of every animal and fit them on a boat. ...Really? I mean... really?
Some pretty funny stuff in the bible when you look at it objectively, which is how it was always meant to be seen. It's a book of fables, parables, meant to teach lessons about how to live your life. It's not meant to be a historical document (though I do believe that Jesus existed, was a self-proclaimed profit and was murdered by the Romans... I just don't think he was the son of God).
This is exactly what I've been saying! He's not as inflammatory as Ann Coulter, but he's a smug pseudo-intellectual, just like Dennis Miller.
I still want a cite on that germ theory thing. If he's into alternative medicine, sure, but denying germ theory is going to take some youtube-grade citing.