" @bushpusherr said:I'm atheist, and I'm accepting of all beliefs equally. I don't care how crazy a religion sounds. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. If you ask me, you're the one who's sounding unaccepting of people's beliefs.While yes, there are religious extremist groups of all different religions that are intolerant of other religions, atheists in general (as opposed to some sort of fringe atheist groups), are intolerant of religious people as a whole. Just look at the comments made in this thread. From this page alone, even. "As a human being, I feel embarassed by theists." "An idiot is an idiot. Religion only adds flavour." Athiests, in general have little tolerance for people who claim belief in any higher power.You have a lot of explaining to do to justify a disgusting comment such as that. "
On the other hand, your agnostics, your GENERAL, non-fringe, more moderate religious folk (which is the large majority of people who claim any religion today) basically don't care/respect your right to believe in Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Gaia, or Zeus. They don't look down on you because you have a belief in something, period. In this way, they are more open-minded than the atheists who trash anyone who believes in any higher power whatsoever.
@bushpusherr said:You're probably right. Since atheists are unaccepting of ALL beliefs equally, they're better than religious people. "Sure. But to make the comparison that atheists are less accepting of people's varying beliefs than the religious is ignorant. "
Your beliefs, and thoughts on religion?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
OT: I personally don't believe in any kind of spirituality or religion. I have had a very limited experience when it comes to religious people, I don't think I have ever met a christian I can remember by name. I do know quite a lot of muslims though, and they are just like everyone else (just that they get to eat something else when pork is served at the school cafeteria and some girls wear those veil thingys). So I don't really have an opinion on religious people other than that they seem to be normal people.
The difference between agnostic and atheist is that agnostic people believe in SOME higher power, though not necessarily a specific one, and atheists believe in no higher power at all." @melcene: I'm going to take a guess and say that most agnostic people are atheists.
@PrivateIronTFU: How am I sounding unaccepting? I'm merely pointing out stuff that is shown in these kinds of threads.
I am agnostic and atheist. I'm atheist in my beliefs and agnostic when it comes to my stance on my own knowledge of the subject." @TheSeductiveMoose said:
" @melcene: I'm going to take a guess and say that most agnostic people are atheists.The difference between agnostic and atheist is that agnostic people believe in SOME higher power, though not necessarily a specific one, and atheists believe in no higher power at all. "
Atheism = Belief.
Agnosticism = The disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge.
" @bushpusherr said:First off, "An idiot is an idiot. Religion only adds flavour." is not insulting theists in the least. In fact, it supports my comment upon zealotry rather well. I think that one went over your head.While yes, there are religious extremist groups of all different religions that are intolerant of other religions, atheists in general (as opposed to some sort of fringe atheist groups), are intolerant of religious people as a whole. Just look at the comments made in this thread. From this page alone, even. "As a human being, I feel embarassed by theists." "An idiot is an idiot. Religion only adds flavour." Athiests, in general have little tolerance for people who claim belief in any higher power.You have a lot of explaining to do to justify a disgusting comment such as that. "
On the other hand, your agnostics, your GENERAL, non-fringe, more moderate religious folk (which is the large majority of people who claim any religion today) basically don't care/respect your right to believe in Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Gaia, or Zeus. They don't look down on you because you have a belief in something, period. In this way, they are more open-minded than the atheists who trash anyone who believes in any higher power whatsoever.
@bushpusherr said:You're probably right. Since atheists are unaccepting of ALL beliefs equally, they're better than religious people. "Sure. But to make the comparison that atheists are less accepting of people's varying beliefs than the religious is ignorant. "
Secondly, if someone has the right to believe in any god // prophet // mothership then someone equally has the right to not believe in any God at all without persecution. If you're restricting to people who believe in a higher cause and people who don't know // care, I guess that makes as intolerant as the atheists you keep referring to.
@PrivateIronTFU said:
" @JJWeatherman said:Then I'd like you to explain my response to the quotation on page 5 he hasn't given me a response to." @Rockdalf said:Exactly. I don't think he's ever trying to 'attack' anybody. He just has that sarcastic drawl in his voice that people tend to take as "I'm smarter than you, here, let me show you why". But if you actually listen to what the guy says, he makes a ton of sense. "" @JJWeatherman said:What was his reasoning behind that? Also, I don't think he's "attacking" anyone. He's just trying to bring a perspective that makes a lot of sense to everyone attention. He's doing it the only way he knows how. Besides, at least movies like Religulous make people pay attention and talk about it. That's really the goal. Try not to take it personally. "" @Rockdalf said:... That and his placing of child molestation on a lower tier than childhood bullying astounded me. "" @JJWeatherman: Really, cause I think he's an asshat personally. "What could you possibly find so "asshatty" about him? He's a cool dude. He's funny and makes really good points. He's similar to Jon Stewart in a way. You should check out Real Time with Bill Maher. "
agnostics are the pussy version of atheists.
" @Rockdalf: But nowhere did I bash on atheists for not believing. That's their right not to believe. I was pointing out how atheists in general, often bash on people who believe in any higher power at all, and in that way, they are more close-minded than the agnostics and moderate religious people that don't care what people believe or disbelieve. "And I could generalize religious folk as holy roller, scripture spewing parrots. But I don't cause that doesn't apply to all of them. Same with atheists.
I fully understand that. But you're talking about extreme religious nuts verses general atheists. You're not talking about the general religious population verses the general atheist population. Maybe that's because there isn't really an "extreme" atheist population. And sure, maybe this is more subjective than objective, but from every since one of these threads I've seen on the internet, atheists seem far more likely to bash agnostics and believers than vice versa. Like I said, just take a look at this thread as an example.
" @bushpusherr said:That is utterly false. Atheists do not accept any religious belief by definition, but that says nothing of whether or not they accept the person with religious beliefs. Intolerant of religion on a personal basis? Yes. Intolerant or religious people? That is a huge step to make from the previous statement. One that I don't beleive is justified at all. Of course there are people who make remarks(especially when the majority of the board seems to be atheist) but there are also plenty of people who have said "I don't care what you beleive as long as you keep it out of my business." They are plenty tolerant as long as nothing is forced upon them.While yes, there are religious extremist groups of all different religions that are intolerant of other religions, atheists in general (as opposed to some sort of fringe atheist groups), are intolerant of religious people as a whole. Just look at the comments made in this thread. From this page alone, even. "As a human being, I feel embarassed by theists." "An idiot is an idiot. Religion only adds flavour." Athiests, in general have little tolerance for people who claim belief in any higher power.You have a lot of explaining to do to justify a disgusting comment such as that. "
On the other hand, your agnostics, your GENERAL, non-fringe, more moderate religious folk (which is the large majority of people who claim any religion today) basically don't care/respect your right to believe in Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Gaia, or Zeus. They don't look down on you because you have a belief in something, period. In this way, they are more open-minded than the atheists who trash anyone who believes in any higher power whatsoever.
@bushpusherr said:You're probably right. Since atheists are unaccepting of ALL beliefs equally, they're better than religious people.Sure. But to make the comparison that atheists are less accepting of people's varying beliefs than the religious is ignorant. "
And agnostics are not be considered "religious folk." They simply aren't. As I stated in a previous post, agnostics are atheists by definition. People don't really care to realize this because society has demonized the word atheist into a pejorative term without really understanding what it means.
And yes, you acknowledge that religious extremists groups are intolerant of other religions, but this is certainly not the only case, or even the majority of cases. The Catholic church is certainly not extremist and being a homosexual is not a religion. There are also plenty of news stories out there that detail discrimination against atheists specifically for their disbeleif. Families chased out of neirborhoods, attempted impeachments of governemtn officials solely because they are atheist, and on and on and on.
You seem to make the comparison that since atheists don't beleive anything, the are unaccepting of people who do. You are making rash judgments on a massive group of people based on a few cherry picked statements.
Also, for clarification, when I said " your agnostics, your GENERAL, non-fringe, more moderate religious folk " I meant agnostics AND your general, nonfringe, moderate religious folk. Sorry my sentence structure made it unclear, that was my bad. I certainly wouldn't call agnostics religious. They disagree with religion as an institution and I can totally support that. However, I wouldn't call them atheists either because they still believe in some sort of higher power.
No, they don't. Agnosticism has got nothing to do with belief in a higher power. Agnosticism is (as I said before) the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge.I wouldn't call them atheists either because they still believe in some sort of higher power. "
^This so many times over."And agnostics are not be considered "religious folk." They simply aren't. As I stated in a previous post, agnostics are atheists by definition. "
@melcene said:
Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, not belief." @bushpusherr: They disagree with religion as an institution and I can totally support that. However, I wouldn't call them atheists either because they still believe in some sort of higher power. "
EDIT: Argh. Beaten.
" @bushpusherr: I have basically already responded to all the comments you just made in response to other people's posts. Also, for clarification, when I said " your agnostics, your GENERAL, non-fringe, more moderate religious folk " I meant agnostics AND your general, nonfringe, moderate religious folk. Sorry my sentence structure made it unclear, that was my bad. I certainly wouldn't call agnostics religious. They disagree with religion as an institution and I can totally support that. However, I wouldn't call them atheists either because they still believe in some sort of higher power. "I'm sorry but your position on agnostics just absolutely isn't true. What you are thinking of is a "deist." The belief in some form of ultimate power that created the universe, a "god" if you will, but not a god that intervenes in human affairs or cares what we do. An agnostic is essentially the neutral party. They claim that questions of the origin of the universe or the existence of gods is not known by humans, and cannot be made known to humans. In accordance with this definition, agnostics are clearly not theists. Thus, this makes them atheists.
And again, you don't have to point out extremists in religion to find intolerance, you can find plenty by examining moderates.. I used homosexuality as just one example. The beleive that homosexuality is an abomination is not in the slightest a fringe belief, and it has had massive ramifications. The Creationist propaganda against science is another example.
" I am a strange man for I have my own religion. It borrows much from Christianity, as Jesus Christ and God are existant figures. However, God is not a smiting leader. He is a dude, who runs heaven partying all day and night long. He also snowboards and plays the drums. Jesus is his trendy roommate. In my religion death is not a thing to be afraid of. It means that you will get to go to heaven after being judged. if you have lived your life horribly (murdered people who someone cared about etc) then you will be smitten to hell for a time suitable as a punishment. If you don't go to hell then only heaven and eternal bliss awaits. You have the choice to make your heaven whatever you like. And by whatever I mean fucking whatever the eff you want it to be. There you will be able to stay as long as you want.... ...however you are going to get tired of it. You have the chance to change it however much you want and as many times you want, but still it will feel like something's missing. Then, if wished so, you can be reborn as anything you want. On earth, that is. Butterfly, tumbleweed, white whale, human - anything. If you die again you will be reconnected to your spirit and you will regain all your experiences from previous lives. So by some time you will know in heaven what it means to be a cat, a human and an acorn. The worst thing is that I believe in this stupidity 100%. I know it's hard to believe, but fuck if that doesn't sound logical. Any questions, then ask ahead. "
This sounds sort of nice, but to me it would feel quite fake. Like if I want my heaven to be my family and I just hanging out, but everyone else in my family is doing something else like living in an ice cream factory than it is sort of just like I'm dreaming and living by myself and am living with fake versions of my family.
@bushpusherr: @Entus: @TheSeductiveMoose: You're all correct by definition. I guess I'm just used to people who claim to be agnostic also considering themselves to be deist (which is often why they won't go so far to say they are atheist).
But back to the original intent of the thread (now that we all agree or agree to disagree)... Personally, as I said earlier in the thread, I'm a nonpracticing Catholic with some gnostic views. My best friends is Wiccan, my family is a bunch of fake find-god-every-few-years Christians, and my husband just found out in the last couple years that he's part Jewish, though I'd say he's simply someone who believes in God but subscribes to no religion.
" @JJWeatherman said:I totally didn't get a PM from this. If you think this is pointless to discuss, then why did you want a response from me about this quote? Well I'll give you one.The ending quote from Religulous (parts that make my point are bolded and underlined):" @Rockdalf said:
" @JJWeatherman said:I'm sure he was joking in the video. That is what you do on talk shows, after all. That really, really shouldn't be taken seriously in that context. And there you go using the word attack again. Nobody's attacking anyone. Can't people speak their minds and make points without it being labeled as an attack? "" @Rockdalf said:I'll link the video where I saw it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zx2o9C12yo&feature=related It was sort of said in jest, but that's the duality of having opinions and being a comedian: you get to stand by your comments in certain company and dismiss them as jokes in other. That being said, I do like John Stewart, but he prefers to attack general stupidity in politics and news media, rather than a certain topic he decrees as stupid (i.e. Bill Maher and all religion). "" @JJWeatherman said:What was his reasoning behind that? Also, I don't think he's "attacking" anyone. He's just trying to bring a perspective that makes a lot of sense to everyone attention. He's doing it the only way he knows how. Besides, at least movies like Religulous make people pay attention and talk about it. That's really the goal. Try not to take it personally. "" @Rockdalf said:... That and his placing of child molestation on a lower tier than childhood bullying astounded me. "" @JJWeatherman: Really, cause I think he's an asshat personally. "What could you possibly find so "asshatty" about him? He's a cool dude. He's funny and makes really good points. He's similar to Jon Stewart in a way. You should check out Real Time with Bill Maher. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[last lines]
Bill Maher: The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look, I'm not trying to dissuade you from the guy, but I just don't like him. He's a douche, and for someone who expresses so much emphasis on the humility of doubt, he sure as hell has a way of passing his opinion off as damning fact. Regardless, this is off topic by this point and really pointless for two individuals to discuss. If you can't see that as an attack (or in the very least a rally to arms) than we cannot possibly see eye to eye on this matter. We might as well question the validity of the letter "A" as what an attack is. I don't despise the man specifically, it's people like him, religious and not. I would find a preacher saying that Maher is destroying our country just as equally saddening. Believe what you want to believe, all the very least I ask is you question whatever it is you believe at least once in your life. "
I'm reading through this and every spot that you underlined is perfectly fine in my eyes. Have you ever written a persuasive essay at any point? He obviously made that movie to show his own (logical) opinions, and persuade others to see it his way. He's not trying to pass his opinion of as "damning fact". And of course this is a rally to arms!! Fuuuuuck! You read this and all you see is "attack, attack, attack!". What I see is "Please, PLEASE realize that what I'm saying makes sense! Here are a couple of hard truths. PLEASE take them into consideration.". But alas, all you see is "attack!". Seriously, read over those underlined sections again, but this time ACTUALLY read them.
" The difference between thinking you're smart and being smart is miles apart. So next time you insist on thinking you're smarter than most of the world for being atheist, ask yourself why you're still working at Office Max and living at mom's. "It's okay. You'll get promoted soon. We're all rooting for you.
v_v Really?" @Rockdalf said:
I totally didn't get a PM from this. If you think this is pointless to discuss, then why did you want a response from me about this quote? Well I'll give you one.
The ending quote from Religulous (parts that make my point are bolded and underlined):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[last lines]
Bill Maher: The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look, I'm not trying to dissuade you from the guy, but I just don't like him. He's a douche, and for someone who expresses so much emphasis on the humility of doubt, he sure as hell has a way of passing his opinion off as damning fact. Regardless, this is off topic by this point and really pointless for two individuals to discuss. If you can't see that as an attack (or in the very least a rally to arms) than we cannot possibly see eye to eye on this matter. We might as well question the validity of the letter "A" as what an attack is. I don't despise the man specifically, it's people like him, religious and not. I would find a preacher saying that Maher is destroying our country just as equally saddening. Believe what you want to believe, all the very least I ask is you question whatever it is you believe at least once in your life. "
I'm reading through this and every spot that you underlined is perfectly fine in my eyes. Have you ever written a persuasive essay at any point? He obviously made that movie to show his own (logical) opinions, and persuade others to see it his way. He's not trying to pass his opinion of as "damning fact". And of course this is a rally to arms!! Fuuuuuck! You read this and all you see is "attack, attack, attack!". What I see is "Please, PLEASE realize that what I'm saying makes sense! Here are a couple of hard truths. PLEASE take them into consideration.". But alas, all you see is "attack!". Seriously, read over those underlined sections again, but this time ACTUALLY read them. "
Can I appeal to common sense here and say that you apparently fail to grasp the definition of attack? I mean every fucking definition of the verb "attack" I look up in dictionaries seems to list it as the 2nd most common use of it, right under physically beating someone :
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attack
http://www.yourdictionary.com/attack
so on and so forth.
I mean sure we could argue that the term is subjective (which is where I think you're going with this), but you might as well argue the same for what a dictionary is or the color blue.
I swear, what pisses me off more than ignorance, arrogance and plain idiocy is the simple forum argument that will ALWAYS devolve into:
A) Your stance resembles Hitler
or
B) Simple acceptance of common terminology we've been using since first grade.
Now, concede what the man is obviously doing when he compares belief in higher entity to that of causing the destruction of mankind. It's not that damn hard.
To provide another independent response to your point, you've failed to show any reason as to why if we define what he does as attacking we should care. Like he's attacking religion so what? If Maher is asserting that the impacts from religion are bad, and that religion is illogical then his attacks are totally appropriate. Really the most you can hope to do is disprove Mahers logic, which is perfectly acceptable as a response, because then his attack becomes unjustified. But to complain that someones complaint about a religion is an attack is almost stating the obvious. There's nothing on face wrong with an attack, and there's even less fault to be found in attacking a position that's being held as illogical. Basically if you can condemn Maher for this then you can condemn pretty much any rational argument ever. (Didn't MLK attack Jim Crow laws?)
So basically the argument really doesn't have to break down in the way you claim that it does, the only reason that happens is because people fail to provide any structure to their arguments.
I am a Pastafarian.
" @Hockeymask27 said:True that." There is only one true god/relgion his name is goku.I'm not one to crap on other peoples religions, but Goku is not a god. There are people who are above him. I'm sorry, I know this comes as a blow. ""
Anyway my thoughts on Religion? meh, i'm Atheist (though i don't want to be, i would love nothing more than proof of something more, but there just isn't any) i have no issue with religion at all. Only thing i have problem with is when Religion enters every situation when it has nothing to do with said situation.
" I'm a Christian. I go to Church (almost) every Sunday. I don't pressure others on their religions because I don't appreciate being questioned on mine. Everybody believes what they want to, but nobody has cold hard evidence. Yep. "That lack of cold hard evidence doesnt stop people from killing others because they think their god has a bigger dick than your god.
" @Rockdalf: arguably Maher's point could be interpreted as being seen as a call for athiests to assert themselves. While this may include what you view as 'attacking' it could just as easily be seen as merely reclaiming intellectual territory that rightfully (in Maher's terms) belongs to secular thought processes. So from that view you may be right about the use of the term attack but it doesn't matter. To provide another independent response to your point, you've failed to show any reason as to why if we define what he does as attacking we should care. Like he's attacking religion so what? If Maher is asserting that the impacts from religion are bad, and that religion is illogical then his attacks are totally appropriate. Really the most you can hope to do is disprove Mahers logic, which is perfectly acceptable as a response, because then his attack becomes unjustified. But to complain that someones complaint about a religion is an attack is almost stating the obvious. There's nothing on face wrong with an attack, and there's even less fault to be found in attacking a position that's being held as illogical. Basically if you can condemn Maher for this then you can condemn pretty much any rational argument ever. (Didn't MLK attack Jim Crow laws?) So basically the argument really doesn't have to break down in the way you claim that it does, the only reason that happens is because people fail to provide any structure to their arguments. "Where is a suicide emote when you need one. The next bit is going to summarize the events of our chit-chat that you apparently haven't read:
I was never claiming there was anything morally wrong with him attacking religion in the first place. If you are following this you'll see I simply gave my opinion on the man, was asked to elaborate, further elaborated that I didn't like him because he is an asshat who attacks peoples beliefs outside his own and then the validity of whether he "attacks" differing viewpoints was brought into question. You're absolutely right, it doesn't prove a point, because it's all my personal opinion as I stated THE VERY FIRST fucking post. But when pressed that I was using the word "attack" to forcefully, I brought up the definition and asked how his statements don't resemble any coherent definition of attack.
SO HERE WE ARE, defining 'attack', which is ultimately pointless as I stated in the VERY FIRST fucking post it was my personal opinion.
I'm not arguing the damn man's opinion, I never have been, I'm just saying he's a dickhead for having it, a personal opinion of my own. The sad thing is that apparently many are quick to step to the bat, protecting his spitting in the face of anyone who isn't anti-religion (as they're not rational people), but I'm not entitled to the opinion of being attacked. You guys worry me sometimes.
If you'd reread what I said I'm never saying that you claim that there's anything morally wrong with attacking a position, and I'm not asking you to define attack. I basically said that it was secondary to the argument as to whether we deem it an attack or not, even if we grant you that Maher is attacking people, it doesn't fundamentally change anything.
Now to apply the analysis that I suppose should have been in my prior post. If you're a rational human you probably have reasons for your opinions, there's some belief that since it's someones opinion it's immune to discussion or critique, but I don't buy into that. If you want to come out right now and say that you have no rational reason for believing that he's an asshat then fine, I guess I can't say anything. But since you were able to give a reason as to why you thought he was an ass then that reason is totally open to analysis. Thus if, as I'm arguing, that the attack is no reason to dislike the man then I'm positing that your opinion is basically founded off of an incorrect assertion.
I agree that I let my last post get out of hand. Honestly, I never meant any of this put up to debate, I was just wanting to state my personal opinion about Maher in response to someone's praise for him. Also, I realize you weren't asking me to define "attack", it was simply my failure in trying to show you the order of events seeing as I thought you had misread them. However, I don't really have a point, besides the fact that it was totally justifiable for an individual to feel attacked by Maher's statement that I quoted and then provided three separate definitions for the word, which qualify the quotation to fit the term of "attack".
But you're absolutely right, if it is an attack, so what, so let's start over from the beginning.
I'm simply asserting that Maher's comments offend me (hence my reference to him as an asshat) as I believe a person's belief on the existence of a supreme being or not is subjective and not open to debate. I mean, the man himself states there is no evidence to prove the existence of a deity, and we know logically that a lack of evidence for proof of the existence of a god does not count as evidence FOR the absence of a god. So in essence we're arguing with nothing more than opinions and little less than speculation. So if my belief is no better in argument than any OTHER belief, what gives Mr. Maher the right to state (logically) that his belief there is no god is superior to the belief of others in a god. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Maher's entire movie is centered around pointing out the most ridiculous of various religious beliefs, fallaciously generalizing that to ALL religious beliefs, while offering no evidence to support his own (because of course there is none) and sums it up with an attack on beliefs outside his own.
In essence, I don't have the right to tell Mr. Maher that his opinion is wrong until evidence is found that counter his opinion. By the same token of fairness, he has no right to state all religion is wrong until he has evidence that supports that belief.
Does this suffice for me to hold an opinion that the man is an arrogant asshat (which fittingly would describe someone who has their head shoved so far up their ass they are wearing it for a hat)?
This is totally a coherent thought process for why you might hold the opinion that you do which I appreciate. Obviously if I were to continue debating this with you then I'd argue about the fact that someones belief shouldn't always be seen as subjective, and it seems like to an extent you agree here since we do kind of discuss the value of beliefs and their being held over other people. While we could get into a debate about what positive fact is logical to accept, I don't think that'd get us anywhere, and I never stated my opinion with the intent of debating that point. So I'm glad that the discussion just got a little more fleshed out I guess. If that makes any sense. In other words all I ever wanted to see was that argument starting from what Maher does to why it makes sense to dislike him for that. While we could disagree on it, I don't want to belabor that point, nor was it ever my point.
Wow, you have no idea how much I appreciate your coherent, well thought out post. I agree that debating when fact becomes accepted fact is a pointless endeavor, as it always degrades into unsuccessful ramblings of perception and Matrix references (usually from myself) that ultimately serve no purpose. Probably best just to end this here on a much better note than it could've been. I say, thank you and that now is the time to return to my schedule of killing dudes on Black Ops. Peace.
" God is not great and religion poisons everything "Christopher Hitchens forever.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment