Bill Maher - Religulous

[scared?]

lol turing...

[R00k]

Ah, but that's the trick, you're wrong there. They are stating the facts as they -want- to see them. I am rather religious and I think that the idea of Intelligent Design is fucking retarded, as far as the capitalized, pseudo-scientific version of it. It's a manner of warping science to fit belief. Science doesn't work that way. Thus, even if they are lying to themselves as well, they are still lying.

Shoehorning a divine creator in just because there are flaws in evolutionary theory is flat out intellectual dishonesty. If they were serious about their faith and searching for the truth, then they wouldn't be attempting to mold reality, they'd be studying reality and finding out what is actually true.

Eh, there are a few Old Testament verses about it that make it not kosher. They're right in next to the lines about shellfish. Anyone who's ignoring God's word enough to use verses like that out of context is, once again, Doing It Wrong.

Not in the least. I'm not pushing my beliefs on them at all, I am simply pointing out that this is what a constructive dialog would look like. It's not about calling them stupid. It's about having a conversation regarding why pushing your beliefs on others is wrong, about putting up cultural boundaries that make certain behaviors not okay, and about helping people to believe in the way that their holy books tell them.

I think that it's also okay to tell Muslims who blow themselves up that they are Doing It Wrong, for instance. I don't feel bad about it. It's simply a fact. Their holy book doesn't tell them to act that way, and they are warping it for their own desires.

And if they didn't have religion, they'd have something else. Religion is just the easiest fallback method, because people aren't used to using religion as a positive tool. People are instead used to simply being preached at and not having a personal relationship with their faith. They are used to being followers.

Even though Christianity is about surrendering to Christ, that's all it's about surrendering to. You aren't supposed to just bow down to a religious leader and do whatever he says. Unless you're Catholic. And they've been behaving pretty well lately. :P

So only certain parts of the bible should be ignored and have modern rational principles and moral codes applied to it -- not the whole thing.

Am I correct in understanding your argument?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

But no, I never said that rational is irrational. I said that at times, the irrational can be a good thing and that immediately saying "Your religious beliefs are irrational and thus invalid" is a good way to instantly cut of dialog and make people not want to discuss things with you. Of course, the way that you instantly clap your hands over your ears, put words in my mouth, and start screaming real loud about how I'm stupid is a good way to make people not want to discuss things with you rationally anymore as well, you fucking moronic harpy.

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

irrational
adj 1: not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears";
"irrational animals" [ant: rational]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Irrational \Ir*ra"tion*al\, a. [L. irrationalis: cf. F.
irrationnel. See In- not, and Rational.]
1. Not rational; void of reason or understanding; as, brutes
are irrational animals.

2. Not according to reason; absurd; foolish.



Syn: Absurd; foolish; preposterous; unreasonable; senseless.
See Absurd.

[Turing]

Nope, not in the least. Again. Sorry. I'm probably just saying it wrong, it's been known to happen and it's not exactly the easiest subject.

The religion has its own internal logical structure. People who are members of a religion should adhere to such. However, there are usually large gaps in the logic of most religions, which I am perfectly okay with.

The parts that are logical and have rules should be adhered to logically, and the parts which are illogical should be treated in the proper manner as well. God's omnipotence in Christianity, for instance, is irrational but simply presumed. You can chip at it with logic all you want, but it is presumed.

Being cruel to homosexuals is simply not supported, unless you are also going to picket Red Lobster. It is nonsensical and ignores the facts as they are presented. Christ trumps the old testament and fulfills the law, and it's doubly foolish to selectively enforce Levitican law.

[Turing]

But no, I never said that rational is irrational. I said that at times, the irrational can be a good thing and that immediately saying "Your religious beliefs are irrational and thus invalid" is a good way to instantly cut of dialog and make people not want to discuss things with you. Of course, the way that you instantly clap your hands over your ears, put words in my mouth, and start screaming real loud about how I'm stupid is a good way to make people not want to discuss things with you rationally anymore as well, you fucking moronic harpy.

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

irrational
adj 1: not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears";
"irrational animals" [ant: rational]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Irrational \Ir*ra"tion*al\, a. [L. irrationalis: cf. F.
irrationnel. See In- not, and Rational.]
1. Not rational; void of reason or understanding; as, brutes
are irrational animals.

2. Not according to reason; absurd; foolish.



Syn: Absurd; foolish; preposterous; unreasonable; senseless.
See Absurd.

lulz, dictionary flamez.

Man, that's got to be the worst argument on the entire internet, I can't believe you brought that shit.

I would say that absurdity is one of the best ways to describe it, actually. Much better than irrationality. Thank you for that. Belief in the absurd is a very human trait. Reality is, in fact, quite often absurd and goes against the conclusions that you would rationally consider to be true. I think that reserving a small part of your beliefs and allowing them to hold irrational thoughts leaves you slightly better equipped to handle the world as it is.

Personally. More to the point, I think that telling everyone that if they believe in absurd things then they are completely and utterly wrong and have no business believing such things, all you are going to do is alienate those who believe in such things. You're never going to have a healthy dialog and you're never going to get anywhere.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Seriously Turing...are you drunk or charged up on cocaine?

[Turing]

Do you have a childhood story about drinking, too? Is that why you're asking? Did... did daddy smell like booze when he hit mommy?

[GONNAFISTYA]

Hey fuckhead...you claimed that I couldn't have a discussion regarding religion and that I dismiss the other side. I gave you my childhood story to show you that isn't true and has never been.

Put the bottle away and get back to making whatever point you had to make about rational being irrational or whatever the fuck you're rambling on about.

[xer0s]

Give it a rest.

[Turing]

Right, the fact that you had a discussion with someone when you were ten makes it perfectly clear that you have always been rational about religion and this single time when you are acting like an ignorant fuckwit and failing to read my posts properly is just an anomaly.

Save your childhood stories for your therapist and keep your mouth shut until you have something to say that doesn't just sound like an annoying buzzing sound.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Glug glug.

[Turing]

Was that the sound daddy made before he hit you? I asked you to save it for therapy but you can let it out, it's okay. Shhh. It's okay. You can cry, big guy. No one here is going to judge you. Except maybe Casedogg and Doombrain, but those guys are faggots anyway. Let it out, man. Your daddy can't hurt you anymore. Let it out.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Hey man, seriously....don't forget to drink alot of water before you go to sleep. And keep a glass of water next to the bed.

It's also never a bad idea to let out a good puke before actually going to bed...that way you won't potentially wake up drunk.

[Turing]

It's also cute that you have to make up the whole drinking thing, it really is.

It reminds me of a dream I had once. I was sitting on the toilet, and I took a huge shit. I mean, this was a monster. It took up about half of the bowl. When I looked down, it had these little arms and a big smile and started to call me daddy.

When I started to flush and the bowl water was swirling, its arms started to flail around from side to side and it gripped ineffectually at the sides of the bowl, trying its best to stave off its inevitable flushing. It... it just reminds me a lot of this moment.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

The old Turing was cool but the recent opinionated Turing is turning out to be, for lack of a better word, retarded.

[Turing]

Being trapped in thinking that rational thought is the end-all, be-all of the human experience is more retarded than anything that I could come up with, so I'm pretty glad with your assessment. Especially given your propensity for spraying retardation in a wacky water weasel plugged into the Britney Spears gene pool.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Being trapped in thinking that rational thought is the end-all, be-all of the human experience is more retarded than anything that I could come up with, so I'm pretty glad with your assessment. Especially given your propensity for spraying retardation in a wacky water weasel plugged into the Britney Spears gene pool.

Your first sentence doesn't describe my position nor does it defend yours. Your second sentence isn't even a sentence.

[Turing]

Well, you defined that which was irrational as being foolish and said it was something that you "Don't embrace." Which would lead me to believe that you thus embrace only that which is rational.

My mistake that I described your position using the words that you used. And I really apologize for not properly using a semi-colon after "Assessment" to link in what is clearly a run-on sentence fragment. I'm glad to know that you've graduated from dictionary logic to grammar flames at least. At this pace, you might make some sense by the end of the night.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I get what you mean about the "potenial" problems of dismissing instinct and relying on pure rationality, but I didn't see anyone take that position.

While making certain decisions with rationality can be "cold", that is indeed where we're going evolutionary-wise with our society and it in no way means it's a bad thing. We have no real examples from history where societies destroyed themselves through rational means. The Enlightenment and the establishment of scientific methods are terrific evidence to the contrary.

But I think that being dismissive of certain arguments is indeed necessary and progresses the dialogue. If religious people want to dismiss parts of a rational argument so be it, but don't blow smoke up my ass...give me a rational explanation for things instead of "God's plan".

I feel Maher's movie could potentially put some "crazy" aspects of the debate to rest. I feel Dawkins' books have done it, as well as many other authors. The fact that it's discussed on broadcast news so openly is proof to me that there is progress in the discussion.

So again I feel it is required of me to ignore certain arguments in a serious religious discussion.

[Turing]

Well, it's pretty easy to use a few rather rational dictators who thought they had a lock on the rational. I hate it when the religious have to fall back on Pol Pot's religious hatred or Stalinism to make a point, but both of them were excellent examples of people who were acting in the most rational manner for themselves and what they thought was the most rational manner for their people, and who fucked up something fierce. Stalin's Russia was ruthlessly efficient and great from many metrics, but humanity wasn't one of them.

I don't think that all rational arguments should be discounted, not in the least. I just think that when you try to bring rationality to the table regarding the idea of 'proving God' or more to the point 'proving the non-existence of God,' then you're missing the point of faith and it's cornerstones. I think that the whole "God's plan" thing is a cop out a lot of the time, I just don't think that "Belief in God is irrational" is a good reason to stop doing it, that's all.

I think that it would be nice if Maher could present something balanced about it, but I don't see that happening. I would love, absolutely LOVE to be wrong, and I'm certainly going to watch it now that I was goaded to do so on the internet. Hopefully it'll be easier to pirate than Expelled was.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Well, you defined that which was irrational as being foolish

No, that's the meaning of the word, it was defined as such long before I was even born. I'm trying to help you understand the big word which you've been using incorrectly.

[R00k]

Nope, not in the least. Again. Sorry. I'm probably just saying it wrong, it's been known to happen and it's not exactly the easiest subject.

The religion has its own internal logical structure. People who are members of a religion should adhere to such. However, there are usually large gaps in the logic of most religions, which I am perfectly okay with.

The parts that are logical and have rules should be adhered to logically, and the parts which are illogical should be treated in the proper manner as well. God's omnipotence in Christianity, for instance, is irrational but simply presumed. You can chip at it with logic all you want, but it is presumed.

Being cruel to homosexuals is simply not supported, unless you are also going to picket Red Lobster. It is nonsensical and ignores the facts as they are presented. Christ trumps the old testament and fulfills the law, and it's doubly foolish to selectively enforce Levitican law.

Selectively choosing which parts of the bible to literally believe. That's pretty much what I said.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I think that it would be nice if Maher could present something balanced about it, but I don't see that happening. I would love, absolutely LOVE to be wrong, and I'm certainly going to watch it now that I was goaded to do so on the internet. Hopefully it'll be easier to pirate than Expelled was.

Well that was my broader point about ridiculing religious aspects because nothing makes a person re-evaluate their position than public embarrassment. It might not change their view entirely (like racism, global warming, flat earth) in a private manner but it does shut them up on occasion (or at least sometimes temper their words) if they spew crap in public.

I think that's the point of this movie and was my point about running them over with penguins. And I feel it does progress the discussion. The "Expelled" movie did nothing but reset the discussion 200 years in some people's view of the world, while this film might get everyday people to see "normal, common things" in their societies for what they are...crazy.

[Turing]

Well, you defined that which was irrational as being foolish

No, that's the meaning of the word, it was defined as such long before I was even born. I'm trying to help you understand the big word which you've been using incorrectly.

Except that's a more modern definition. It's clearly got a broader meaning than that. It means "That which is not rational." It is more recently that we've started ascribing foolishness to the word. But it at least helped me to start using "Absurdity," which is a more accurate term.

Thanks for taking ten select words out of my post to reply to. I can imagine you wouldn't want to take the whole thing at once, it's a lot of intellectual heavy lifting for you to try to think up replies to all of them words I was using there.

[Turing]

Nope, not in the least. Again. Sorry. I'm probably just saying it wrong, it's been known to happen and it's not exactly the easiest subject.

The religion has its own internal logical structure. People who are members of a religion should adhere to such. However, there are usually large gaps in the logic of most religions, which I am perfectly okay with.

The parts that are logical and have rules should be adhered to logically, and the parts which are illogical should be treated in the proper manner as well. God's omnipotence in Christianity, for instance, is irrational but simply presumed. You can chip at it with logic all you want, but it is presumed.

Being cruel to homosexuals is simply not supported, unless you are also going to picket Red Lobster. It is nonsensical and ignores the facts as they are presented. Christ trumps the old testament and fulfills the law, and it's doubly foolish to selectively enforce Levitican law.

Selectively choosing which parts of the bible to literally believe. That's pretty much what I said.

Just curious, are you actually... uh, you know... reading my posts?

I don't have any problem with literally believing that Levitican law was handed down to the Jews for them to follow. I have problems with literally believing that, literally believing in the birth of Christ, but then ignoring the part where he fulfills the law and makes it out of date. Or, more importantly, picking and choosing the laws of Leviticus so that you think that homosexuals are totally against God and all his creation, but you don't mind eating at Red Lobster despite them eating shellfish, which is also an abomination, just like cocksucking.

That's not about being selective. That's the opposite. If you're going to take it, you have to read the whole thing and make sense out of it. You can't take bits of it out of context to justify hate. That's just not right.