[Severian]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

That's a gargantuan exaggeration. Don't shit outside the bowl.


"Answer me honestly" would have gotten loud cheers as well. Now, on that show oftentimes the audience's response does indeed drown out the "rival" interviewee and seem to prevent the conversation to move along. But let's not kid ourselves: the real problem is that most of the time the conversation has no place to move along to, because all the person being interviewed has to offer are euphemisms for bullcrap anyway.


This line of thinking REALLY irks the living FUCK out of me. You're taking part in an egregious false equivalency. Maher himself has said that irreflective atheism mirrors the blind conviction of the religious believer, which leads me to my personal stance (not unshared, hopefully; otherwise Rotten was dead right and there actually is no future): since we simply don't know whether there's any kind of afterlife, the only sane, rational thing to be is agnostic... in principle. In practice, when it comes to dealing with anything regarding this subject that's unproven but stated as fact or even trivial ("I dunno... I just believe that..."), you can't be anything but an atheist — ALL religions, cults, sects (synonyms, in the end) are based on the notion that somebody at some point knew what's "on the other side", THE greatest lie in mankind's history. You know how I know? Because I don't know. And whoever started each of these bullshitfests were nothing but other humans who didn't have any superabilities I don't possess. Worse yet, in 99% of these cases the scriptures and commandments and creeds, which are incalculably, unfathomably ridiculous and contradictory to say the very least, were written and rewritten by generations of ignorants who weren't even remotely aware of the atom or the DNA, let alone the Higgs boson: shit, everything science has discovered and keeps discovering and working on.

If one makes it all the way to this point in a conversation with a believer (seriously doubtful; they shut down way before), it's at this juncture when they admit they're believing in a lie (not that they'll ever use that word). So their answer turns to the lowest possible argument: "Well, if believing in the supernatural will make someone feel better about this terrible world, what's the harm?" "What's the HARM?" Gee, let us count the ways: the systematic rape of children, 9/11, the subjugation of women and all sorts of minorities, centuries jam-packed with abject carnage beyond imagination, want me to keep going? If you're selling something but nobody's buying, you're forced to sell off, and nothing better could happen to humanity — sell all your fucking temples and cathedrals to McDonald's for all I care. Nah, don't do that; keep them as music venues. The acoustics on some of those joints are just heavenly...

Why do your posts always have to end like this? "Whatevs". "Blah". Put in a little effort, writer.

Ok, first off, I am agnostic.
Second, I am agnostic in practice, so I don't HAVE to be atheistic in practice, because I'm not. If I had to be, I would be. But I find I'm perfectly capable of falling back on my agnosticism by conversing with people who are believers and non-believers alike. I challenge both religious zealots and determined atheists. I listen to them give their spiel (usually it involves faithisms from one side, refer boxes to "science" from the other), and I say, "Ok, sure, but none of what you're saying goes beyond your decision to buy into a belief system. None of it is proven, and isn't it a bit arrogant to claim that you know for a fact that someone else is wrong, when it's impossible to know that you are right?"

Unless I'm talking to a real nutso, "Earth's a thousand years old" motherfuckers. There's nothing to be said there.

But for all the referencing of science that atheists do, there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of the basic premise of scientific inquiry at play in their reasoning. To say "there is no god" and then use a lack of evidence that a western monotheistic god exists in the way that scripture indicates is only an argument against scripture, against follow-the-leader religion. None of it proves or even comes close to arguing that a "god" cannot possibly exist.
The existence of god is a thing that falls outside the realm of science as we know it. It is non-falsifiable. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of a "god," just as it is impossible to prove any negative. One would have to be an omniscient being to effectively argue that omniscience doesn't exist. But you know this already, so... you're an ice guy but DON'T BULSHIT ME

Also there's a fundamental problem with the working definition of atheism. Any atheist should know enough to know that atheism can't work and doesn't make sense if it means believing in "no god." Rather, the whole thing should be rebranded to mean "belief that the God of Abrahamic scripture and other world religions does not exist as he/she/it is written in said scriptures and religions."

If you're saying that you're an "atheist" because you don't believe in the "God" of the Bible, or his equivalents, then that's fine. But nobody should be dense enough to truly believe that they know for a fact thay omniscient/omnipotent beings don't exist. Back to falsifiability. There is none, no test that can prove this is not the case, so being an "atheist" who argues that "there is no 'god'" is, quite simply, just as balls out stupid as a theist arguing that there is.

At least the many theists -- though not enough--admit that their belief comes from "faith," (meaning, no facts behind it. Atheists like Maher aren't interested in discussing possibility. They're interested in making fun of dumb, impressionable people.

I wish Maher would identify as an agnostic, because you're right: it's the only sane thing to be. I'm wary of anyone who claims to know anything absolutely. That's where virtually all the conflict in the history of humanity has come from: certainty.

And I'm not saying "where's the harm?" There's nothing but harm. Anyone who thinks they have anything completely figured out is dangerous.
The same thing to do is to move forward keeping your own counsel, and being open to anything. Science is constantly changing and evolving. In a thousand years, who know — we may have learned that our most fundamental geometric and algebraic principles are totally fucked.

Anyway, "atheism" is just as bullshit as theism. Agnosticism is the best option available given what we currently know, and the information available to us. That doesn't mean we can't write off the Bible. We can and should, except as a nice little set of stories.

But Maher is usually just a dick about it. No reason for that. "Religulous" was shit. It would have been more interesting to see him have discussions with (mostly agnostic) religious scholars and philosophers. Instead he opted to go to the worst places and try to belittle the dumbest fucking people, just so he could be a smug fuck about it. Tell ya what, he's a sharp guy, but I'd have more respect for him if he didn't seek out people to humiliate. It's not like he doesn't have plenty of intellectual equals out there. I doubt many would be willing to talk to him though... he is to atheism what Ted Nugent is to guns n' shit. And he's an absolute Fucking asshole.

But, again, he is funny as hell, and he's a necessary force in American political discourse. I'm just not 'bout his religious beliefs (because that's exactly what all his arguments and smug bumfuckery really is: it's his religious belief system, and he's not doing anything to bridge the gap between blind followers and skeptics when he laughs at actors playing Jesus.