TheEvangelicalAtheist's Comments

You couldn't.

It's not supposed to be funny, it's supposed to be subversive. He'll say it's supposed to just be a funny movie for yuks and chuckles over and over, but make no mistake: Bill Maher is attacking the religious and the things they believe in. If you didn't think it was funny, you're right. It's depressing, and it's meant to be imflamitory.

And I thought it was fucking hilarious.

An atheist -can- be a zealot, but technically not about their atheism. Atheism is a singular lack of a singular belief, and that is all. There's no dogma, and therefore nothing to be zealous about. But sadly, there are many "crusading atheists" out there who read Dawkins and Harris and decide that they're going to go out and be dicks about the whole thing. Most of them don't even understand what it is they're talking about, and it makes the rest of us look stupid.

So...meh, semantics. You aren't really -wrong- about anything here, but I will still disagree about achieving a peaceful society. . .I think it's a pipe dream with or without religion, but as long as people -do- cling to their dogmas, especially religious ones, I don't think there can ever be a "live and let live" mentality.

"I find the ardent lack of belief that hardline atheists hold to be unworthy of my respect. However, while I might not respect the lack of belief I respect the person and their right to feel as they do. I also seek to get along with other people."

You either respect atheists or you don't. If they are "unworthy" of your respect, then you do not "respect" the person; you tolerate them. If you look at me and say "this person is going to hell, and they are dragging down others with them by actively trying to move people away from my God...but I respect them", then you, my friend, need to re-examine just how much you really believe in your God.

See what I did there? Come over to the dark side...we have punch and pie.

Ah, the non-overlapping magesteria, or NOMA argument. The term was coined by Stephen Jay Gould.

There are many problems here. Religion can and often -does- step on science's turf. From creationism museum tours to the beleif that it's okay to blow up your baby in a crowded restaraunt because the baby will go to paradise and the others will go to helll; these are ideas that have a measurable physical effect on our world. And those effects, having been measured, are negative.

Zealotry -is- a problem. As has been pointed out, however, Zealotry is a default religious position. PASSION, on the other hand, is not inherently bad. If my child's teacher is forced to tell my kids that evolution and "intelligent design" are both equally valid ideas that explain the diversity of life on Earth, I am going to fight againt it, and passionately. This does not make me a zealot, it makes me concerned that the irrational claims of religious people are HURTING my child's development.

But I do understand The_Monk's argument here. The problem is absolute certainty. Doubt and skepticsm are better places to stand, but when our world is being damaged by the claims of religion, the NOMA argument breaks down and we must defend ourselves. The true problem is "faith": believing something is absolutely the truth while having no evidence for it, and basing your life upon these beliefs, no matter how many times you are proven to be wrong.

You can't dis-prove a diety. But you can't disprove underpants gnomes or Russell's teapot either, so I'm not going to base my life around any of them.

"Any place you can provide as a starting point for me to look into that? "

Genesis, chapters one and two? The bible claims that it is innerant, because God is innerant. And yet the contradictions start at the very beginning. ANY contradiction in the bible (and there are many) is a is pointing out a contradiction about the god that supposdely inspired it. It's either factual, or it's not. And if we're going to cherry pick which stories are fact and which are hyperbole or metaphors, then they must -all- be doubted, for the book says they are -all- factual.

Google: "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" for a good starting off point.

Atheism, skepticism, doubt...these are NOT claims. It is a call for proving a claim. The ones who are blowing themselves and other people up because of their imaginary friends are making the claims. The only thing Bill Maher is saying is that these people can't prove it. Someone can EASILY prove Bill Maher wrong, all they need to do is find a single shred of evidence that states ANY religion has a basis in anything other than fantasy. So far it has not been done. Bill Maher's claim here CAN be proven wrong. Much easier than a religious person's can, by the way. The whole "you can't disprove a negative" thing is a fallacy. Again, skepticism is not a negative, it's a lack of faith. And faith is not a virtue, it's a lack of rational though. NOT beleiving in something that has ZERO basis in reality is the exact opposite of faith.

The argument from personal experience is NOT proof, not even for the individual. It is a rationalization. Proof is something that one can point to and say "here is the reason", and then someone else can analyze it. The apostles needed proof that it was really Jesus coming back from the dead. A personal experience that radically changed their lives wasn't enough; they needed to see his wounds. These are the APOSTLES we're talking about, here. So even if a religious person who's only "proof" is a personal experience that radically changed his life -is- in fact correct and telling the truth but nobody else can verify it, they should NOT be believed: It is complteley irrational. Here's an example: Thousands of years ago, someone comes up to you and says "the earth is really a big ball, and it moves around the sun!". They KNOW that this is true, because they had a deep and personally meaningful experience. However, they cannot prove it. It's obviously ridiculous. You are compltely rational to believe he's a lunatic, even though he's absolutely correct. You go about your life as normal. If that person eventually develops a telescope and creates mathematical tools to study and document the movement of the earth around the sun, and is able to measure the circumferece of the globe and prove the planet -is- a sphere...then you will have to believe him. So when scientific understanding reveals something previously thought absurd to be true, the rational people will be forced to say "wow, we've been wrong this whole time". When people of faith are shown that something the believe is wrong, they will cling to their beliefs and say "I have my faith", and then try to teach "intelligent design" to our children while the rest of the advanced world either laughs at us or shakes their heads in disgust.

People who think faith is a virtue, especially the religious (but also conspiracy theorists, new agers and the like) are especially defensive when it comes to skepticism. A Christian can convert a Jew from one imaginary friend to another. An atheist is attacking his entire view of reality, and that is far more dangerous.

Really? Christians aren't going to go see a movie that paints a picture of their religion, and all other religions, as ridiculous? I really doubt there needs to be a Christian boycott against a movie that no Christian is going to see anyway. But I suppose it makes them feel good and righteous about something.

Really? Mars? M-A-R-S; MARS, BITCHES? Is the president really taking his speeches from old Dave Chapelle skits?

While it's true that personal income tax goes directly to the Federal Reserve bank (as much a part of the government as Federal Express is...) Americans also pay social security tax that is, in theory, used to pay social security. However congress constantly dips into this fund in order to pay for their useless programs and pork projects. That's the real reason social security is in trouble. The whole "Baby Boomers are going to retire soon!" line of thinking is silly, since baby boomers had their own children who are now working and paying into the system.