Menu Bar
macisaguy's Comments
Re: 60 Minutes: Gay or Straight?
I blame it on the rain.
By: macisaguy
Re: Howie Mandel's First HBO Special
i can't believe he kept up that energy for an hour. also, this makes me not like howie. at all.
By: macisaguy
Re: Death to the Tinman
this is insane in the absolute best of ways. damn near perfect.
By: macisaguy
Re: Tim Minchin: Not Perfect
as someone who'd never heard of this guy before, i'm still wondering what the point of this was. not really funny, not really a great song...nothing abstract or of the wall.
am i missing something?
am i missing something?
By: macisaguy
Re: Bill Maher's Religulous
Not as funny as I'd hoped for. Nor as punchy. But still entertaining.
His ending monologue now seems a bit disjointed compared to the rest of the film as he talked about war and destruction that religion has caused....seeming to make a final point when that whole issue of destruction wasn't discussed at all really during the movie.
Eh, from a guy who's quick on his feet and can really pull some serious comedy punches, I thought this was weak. Clearly he's after more than comedy, but still....Bill you got more in you than this man.
His ending monologue now seems a bit disjointed compared to the rest of the film as he talked about war and destruction that religion has caused....seeming to make a final point when that whole issue of destruction wasn't discussed at all really during the movie.
Eh, from a guy who's quick on his feet and can really pull some serious comedy punches, I thought this was weak. Clearly he's after more than comedy, but still....Bill you got more in you than this man.
By: macisaguy
Re: Bill Maher's Final Comment from Religulous
That's the best response thus far. Why did I give in so easily?
By: macisaguy
Re: Bill Maher's Final Comment from Religulous
I realized I just argued that truth is different for everyone...which clearly goes against what the Bible teaches, and I think truth is truth, and isn't relative personally.
What I was trying to say is that one other option to having proof of God is truth. It's a universal truth, that can only be understood by people individually when God truly speaks (or moves) in their life. It's the same truth for everyone, but the only way to experience it is through a personal experience with God.
Again, the options when it comes to believing Jesus is God are:
1. He was lying
2. He was crazy
3. He was telling the truth
What I was trying to say is that one other option to having proof of God is truth. It's a universal truth, that can only be understood by people individually when God truly speaks (or moves) in their life. It's the same truth for everyone, but the only way to experience it is through a personal experience with God.
Again, the options when it comes to believing Jesus is God are:
1. He was lying
2. He was crazy
3. He was telling the truth
By: macisaguy
Re: Bill Maher's Final Comment from Religulous
You're right. The argument still stands. He says it with certainty, when there's no way to prove he's right....yet he looks down on people who do believe it, even though they can't prove they're right either. It's fine by me that Bill doesn't believe God speaks, but why the need to belittle those who do?
If it's because he sees those people as dangerous, doing harmful things to others because of what "God told them to do", then that's just a gross generalization. Thousands of people try to help others because they believe "God told them to" and they're doing a lot to help people in serious need.
Saying religious people are dangerous is like saying atheists are dangerous. Sure, maybe some are....but then again, some aren't. Some do a lot to make the world a better place.
He's really generalizing here.
If it's because he sees those people as dangerous, doing harmful things to others because of what "God told them to do", then that's just a gross generalization. Thousands of people try to help others because they believe "God told them to" and they're doing a lot to help people in serious need.
Saying religious people are dangerous is like saying atheists are dangerous. Sure, maybe some are....but then again, some aren't. Some do a lot to make the world a better place.
He's really generalizing here.
By: macisaguy
Re: Bill Maher's Final Comment from Religulous
"I would go on record to say there are no unicorns. There is no way that I could possibly know that with 100% certainty but I don't require faith to say that."
But doesn't believing something without having absolute proof require faith? The dictionary's second definition of faith is, "belief that is not based on proof".
So I have to assume that if you or Bill or anyone doesn't believe in God, yet has no proof he doesn't exist (other than a philosophical argument) then you're going on faith. Which is fine, except that Bill seems to heavily look down on those who have faith, from what I can tell form the clip.
And when you say, "He is stating that no one has proof, that people who claim to have proof are either lying or misinformed," I'd have to say that those who believe in God because of a personal experience that radically changed their life have proof. Though it's proof only for themselves, and can't be measured by science, or anyone else. (Even if that person's behavior changes, that still isn't proof, though I do think it shows they underwent some type of serious transformation.) I guess my point is the only two options of lying or being wrong (for someone who claims to have proof) aren't necessarily the only options. Another is they're telling the truth and it just can't be verified by anyone else. It's a personal experience.
But doesn't believing something without having absolute proof require faith? The dictionary's second definition of faith is, "belief that is not based on proof".
So I have to assume that if you or Bill or anyone doesn't believe in God, yet has no proof he doesn't exist (other than a philosophical argument) then you're going on faith. Which is fine, except that Bill seems to heavily look down on those who have faith, from what I can tell form the clip.
And when you say, "He is stating that no one has proof, that people who claim to have proof are either lying or misinformed," I'd have to say that those who believe in God because of a personal experience that radically changed their life have proof. Though it's proof only for themselves, and can't be measured by science, or anyone else. (Even if that person's behavior changes, that still isn't proof, though I do think it shows they underwent some type of serious transformation.) I guess my point is the only two options of lying or being wrong (for someone who claims to have proof) aren't necessarily the only options. Another is they're telling the truth and it just can't be verified by anyone else. It's a personal experience.
By: macisaguy
Re: Bill Maher's Final Comment from Religulous
I don't think comparing the existence of God and Santa really makes sense. The main reason being Santa was invented as a fictitious character from the beginning, and everyone who read about it knew that.
The Old Testament on the other hand was written with the understanding that it was truth (whether you think it is or not, when written, that was the intention). And something created in truth can't necessarily be compared to something created as a fictitious, fun idea. I just think that's a weak argument.
And I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "when one gets to a specific religion and it's a deity, one can certainly disprove them." I would be interested to hear how you could certainly disprove the Creator of the Universe as stated in biblical texts.
And I'm also curious to how the bible contradicts itself when it comes to God. Any place you can provide as a starting point for me to look into that?
The Old Testament on the other hand was written with the understanding that it was truth (whether you think it is or not, when written, that was the intention). And something created in truth can't necessarily be compared to something created as a fictitious, fun idea. I just think that's a weak argument.
And I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "when one gets to a specific religion and it's a deity, one can certainly disprove them." I would be interested to hear how you could certainly disprove the Creator of the Universe as stated in biblical texts.
And I'm also curious to how the bible contradicts itself when it comes to God. Any place you can provide as a starting point for me to look into that?
By: macisaguy
Re: Bill Maher's Final Comment from Religulous
I find it interesting that he states as fact that no one knows what happens when a person dies, and to claim to know is lunacy. Yet he allows himself to state that there are no gods. How can he know that for a fact?
(I could go into an argument discussing how he says faith is a bad thing, yet he himself has faith there is no God, because he can't actually prove there isn't. But I'll just leave it at that.)
If he's allowed to state with 100% confidence there is no God without proof, how can he look down on those who state with 100% confidence there is a God?
I'm not defending the argument of whether God exists or not. I'm just syaing he seems to be on the same page as everyone else...not having the answers to such large questions, and yet stating his views right...though no one has proof either way. Seems like a flawed argument...and I'm definitely open to people helping me to understand it better, or point out what I might be missing (and I don't mean that as a challenge...I mean it as maybe I'm misinterpreting what he's saying and am open to hearing what I maybe didn't exactly get.)
Also, he's seems pretty smug and cocky and self-righteous for someone who says humanity needs to be more humble.
(I could go into an argument discussing how he says faith is a bad thing, yet he himself has faith there is no God, because he can't actually prove there isn't. But I'll just leave it at that.)
If he's allowed to state with 100% confidence there is no God without proof, how can he look down on those who state with 100% confidence there is a God?
I'm not defending the argument of whether God exists or not. I'm just syaing he seems to be on the same page as everyone else...not having the answers to such large questions, and yet stating his views right...though no one has proof either way. Seems like a flawed argument...and I'm definitely open to people helping me to understand it better, or point out what I might be missing (and I don't mean that as a challenge...I mean it as maybe I'm misinterpreting what he's saying and am open to hearing what I maybe didn't exactly get.)
Also, he's seems pretty smug and cocky and self-righteous for someone who says humanity needs to be more humble.
By: macisaguy
Re: Rachel Maddow: Rick Warren Confused
Isn't this why there's supposed to be a separation of church and state?
By: macisaguy
Re: Christians, Why Do You Celebrate Christmas?
I think the idea that "following a long standing tradition, which is harmless at this point" is a bold statement. Mostly because the tradition isn't that harmless.
Consumerism is insane in this country. And this year I'm jumping on board with the Advent Conspiracy movement. http://www.adventconspiracy.org/
Unfortunately for my family, I'm that guy who is handing over some cash to a non-profit organization in their name. And while I expect to be thanked about as much as those folks who were on the receiving end of George Costanza's "Human Fund: Money for People", I've never been more excited about giving.
This year the family are each getting a $20 bottle of drinking water. The money goes to help build wells in country's in need of clean water.
I was going to buy one as a gift to myself and get the usual gifts for everyone else....but decided that folks need clean water more than my family needs more gift cards.
I'm not saying everyone should do this. I'm not saying this is the "right" or "Christian" thing to do. And I don't in any way think I'm any better than anyone else because of my gift choices this year. Really, I'm not on some soapbox.
But I am excited about changing my own outlook on how to celebrate the birth and life of Christ.
Consumerism is insane in this country. And this year I'm jumping on board with the Advent Conspiracy movement. http://www.adventconspiracy.org/
Unfortunately for my family, I'm that guy who is handing over some cash to a non-profit organization in their name. And while I expect to be thanked about as much as those folks who were on the receiving end of George Costanza's "Human Fund: Money for People", I've never been more excited about giving.
This year the family are each getting a $20 bottle of drinking water. The money goes to help build wells in country's in need of clean water.
I was going to buy one as a gift to myself and get the usual gifts for everyone else....but decided that folks need clean water more than my family needs more gift cards.
I'm not saying everyone should do this. I'm not saying this is the "right" or "Christian" thing to do. And I don't in any way think I'm any better than anyone else because of my gift choices this year. Really, I'm not on some soapbox.
But I am excited about changing my own outlook on how to celebrate the birth and life of Christ.
By: macisaguy
Re: Star Trek Tng: Greatest Minds in Physics Playing Poker
I never knew Newton was such a dick.
By: macisaguy
