Bill Maher - Religulous

[Tsakali]

Turing i was gonna bite after your first 2 posts but by the time I got to the end of the first page ...it's not even worth it.

FYI you can't rationally defend or even excuse religion since the core of the problem is lack of rationalization

aka: oxymoron

[Turing]

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.

I agree that it's important for a lot of religious people to realize that they are believing in the absurd, so I suppose it might advance things in that regard. I just think that doing it in such a mocking and snarky way isn't going to do much, much like pointing out how stupid geoff's belief in a!iens doesn't make him any more rational. Of course, he's an extreme case of retardation, but he's still a pretty solid case. He's been humiliated a thousand times and it just strengthens his resolve.

It's a matter of transitioning from mockery to acceptance. To understand that these things are absurd but so are a lot of things that people believe, and that it's okay to believe in things that are absurd now and then. That's how I see it, at least.

[Turing]

Turing i was gonna bite after your first 2 posts but by the time I got to the end of the first page ...it's not even worth it.

FYI you can't rationally defend or even excuse religion since the core of the problem is lack of rationalization

aka: oxymoron

The core of the problem is not being able to comprehend that you can rationally discuss the irrational. You don't have to accept it as true for yourself, but you can understand that it's possible to believe in irrational things without being a fucking moron.

Human society has been religious for thousands of years. Wiping out religion in one fell swoop just because we're 'enlightened' now seems sort of ridiculous. It's done us plenty of good. What's the problem with people believing what they want as long as they aren't dickheads?

[R00k]

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.

But do you believe literally that the bible came from divine/magical inspiration, and was not wholly created by man? Do you believe the stories of the Old Testament literally happened? Like the garden, the flood, Abraham and Isaac and the angel?

Or do you think they are more like parables?

[R00k]

I agree that it's important for a lot of religious people to realize that they are believing in the absurd, so I suppose it might advance things in that regard. I just think that doing it in such a mocking and snarky way isn't going to do much, much like pointing out how stupid geoff's belief in a!iens doesn't make him any more rational. Of course, he's an extreme case of retardation, but he's still a pretty solid case. He's been humiliated a thousand times and it just strengthens his resolve.

It's a matter of transitioning from mockery to acceptance. To understand that these things are absurd but so are a lot of things that people believe, and that it's okay to believe in things that are absurd now and then. That's how I see it, at least.

So..... do you advocate not being snarky with Geoff? Or discussing things on his level, and letting him beat you with experience? lol

[GONNAFISTYA]

Human society has been religious for thousands of years. Wiping out religion in one fell swoop just because we're 'enlightened' now seems sort of ridiculous. It's done us plenty of good. What's the problem with people believing what they want as long as they aren't dickheads?

Because when it comes to religion normal, rational people turn into irrational dickheads if they are told to. That's the authoritarian nature of religions and is proof that a good man can do bad things.

As for the dictator dickheads who ruined their countries due to irrational rationality, the bigger picture shows they only trashed a part of the globe, not the whole thing. Society in general wasn't destroyed due to rational thinking and is a good indicator that massive, sweeping changes to the zeitgeist are nothing to fear unless irrational people do stupid things.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

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.

I think it's you who needs to go very slowly, step by step.

Holy fuck, you try to insult my intelligence and then define irrational as that which is not rational? cock and balls.

Now define rational you twit. Need some help?


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
1. Relating to reason; not physical; mental.
2. Having reason, or the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason or understanding; reasoning.
3. Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish, fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man.

from Oxford:

rational

• adjective 1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic. 2 able to think sensibly or logically. 3 having the capacity to reason



now as for absurd, care to define that word for me?

Absurd \Ab*surd"\, a. [L. absurdus harsh-sounding; ab + (prob) a derivative fr. a root svar to sound; not connected with surd: cf. F. absurde. See Syringe.]

Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and fiatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous

[Hannibal]

Great, so now we get to wrestle with what the conceptual scope of "reason" is and what it means "to reason". Yipee!

[Tsakali]

Turing i was gonna bite after your first 2 posts but by the time I got to the end of the first page ...it's not even worth it.

FYI you can't rationally defend or even excuse religion since the core of the problem is lack of rationalization

aka: oxymoron

The core of the problem is not being able to comprehend that you can rationally discuss the irrational. You don't have to accept it as true for yourself, but you can understand that it's possible to believe in irrational things without being a fucking moron.

Human society has been religious for thousands of years. Wiping out religion in one fell swoop just because we're 'enlightened' now seems sort of ridiculous. It's done us plenty of good. What's the problem with people believing what they want as long as they aren't dickheads?

I can tell you what the problem is but honestly I wouldn't be following my own advice...

[GONNAFISTYA]

Great, so now we get to wrestle with what the conceptual scope of "reason" is and what it means "to reason". Yipee!

Oh, you mean like in the discussion of evolution and the use of the word "theory"?



But that's always the fallback of anyone who generally defends an indefensible position: pick nits and stall.

[Hannibal]

Great, so now we get to wrestle with what the conceptual scope of "reason" is and what it means "to reason". Yipee!

Oh, you mean like in the discussion of evolution and the use of the word "theory"?

But that's always the fallback of anyone who generally defends an indefensible position: pick nits and stall.

Huh? Is that smirk for me or that thread in general? Did I say something that bothered you...feel free to refresh my memory.

And if you think my statement truly is a nitpick then you have an extremely low tolerance for critical thought. I think Puff will understand the spirit of my post.

[Turing]

I agree, it's kind of sad for Puffs, but I guess that's all he's got going for him? I tried changing the word from irrational to absurd and he's still throwing dictionaries all around the thread.

That said; no, Rook, but that's because I'm not a Christian.

As far as "Society in general," I don't think that religion has ever managed to fuck up society on a global, world-wide scale any more than a number of other belief systems, at the very least. That's my whole point. Blaming all of that negativity on religion is silly. People want to be sheep and want to listen to authoritarian voices, and those voices can come from all sorts of places. Removing religion doesn't help the problem in the least, it just takes away one tool. It's like trying to get rid of FORTRAN and saying that it'll keep everyone from programming.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

[Turing]

Yes, it is an absurd thought. That's... that's really... uh... really groundbreaking. No one in this whole thread has pointed out that religions are, at their core, absurd. Or irrational. Not at all.

You are a fucking groundbreaking pioneer, the way that you post other people's JPGs to make the exact same point that I am already making and ignoring what I am actually saying about that point. It's... it's like magic.

[Turing]

I'm not being fair, though. It's better than your original dictionary attack, and better than the grammar flames, too. You're really showing some improvement. I'd like to think that I've really helped that process along.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Are you saying that reason cannot be applied to realms of belief or that people just shouldn't out of courtesy to those who believe said stuff?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I'm not being fair, though. It's better than your original dictionary attack, and better than the grammar flames, too. You're really showing some improvement. I'd like to think that I've really helped that process along.

Dude you've been flailing around for hours. If my attack was so lame, why did you change the word you were using and acknowledge (although I still don't think you understand the word) that it was wrong? Clearly the dictionary was needed. Now stfu, pay attention and try to learn something.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

What about the universe is absurd and or irrational? Love? Mortality? Existence? Serial killing?

[Tsakali]

[Turing]

What about the universe is absurd and or irrational? Love? Mortality? Existence? Serial killing?

That's an excellent start to a long long list.

I changed the word so as to avoid your ridiculous nitpicking. And it didn't work. Unfortunately.

[Turing]

Oh, and I think that reason can apply to realms of belief but there are certain times where it is bound to fall down. At those times, pushing further with logic isn't going to do anything but piss off the faithful.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Oh, you mean like in the discussion of evolution and the use of the word "theory"?

But that's always the fallback of anyone who generally defends an indefensible position: pick nits and stall.

Huh? Is that smirk for me or that thread in general? Did I say something that bothered you...feel free to refresh my memory.

And if you think my statement truly is a nitpick then you have an extremely low tolerance for critical thought. I think Puff will understand the spirit of my post.

Uh...no. I was agreeing with you and expanding the point to why evolution is still "debated".
I wasn't talking about you nitpicking, but about how religious people and people who defend them stall the discussion with technicalities like "I don't like your tone about (insert meaningless-discretion-ignoring-the-bigger-picture here)". Like how the propaganda-stenographer media harp on flag pins instead of real issues. Distractions and obfuscation if you will.

Chill...none of it was directed at you.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Oh, and I think that reason can apply to realms of belief but there are certain times where it is bound to fall down. At those times, pushing further with logic isn't going to do anything but piss off the faithful.

Who gives a fuck if it pisses them off? A large part of the debate is hampered and stalled precisely BECAUSE they take offense to things. That's another thing that I try to ignore/dismiss in religious discussion to keep the progress going and getting to the real points of the "debate". If it's not us offending them, they'll find something else to rail against...like most of your posts tonite.

[Grudge]

Because when it comes to religion normal, rational people turn into irrational dickheads if they are told to. That's the authoritarian nature of religions and is proof that a good man can do bad things.

This here is the core of the problem.

People may have all sorts of crazy, irrational personal beliefs, and most people do, christian or atheist alike, without hurting anyone.

But as soon as you institutionalize them in a hierarchial and usually authoritarian organization (religion), thats where the real problems start - brainwashing of children, condemning minorities etc etc. Call it some kind of mass psychosis if you like, I don't really think it's beneficial for society in the long run.

[Turing]

There are plenty of times in which it has been beneficial, though. All you have to do is look at the historical record to see that, from the spread of Islam bringing a writing system to 8th-9th century Africa all the way up to positive charity organizations in modern times. Saying that there are no positive sides to religion seems to me to be just as reality-denying as the thought that there are no positive sides to evolutionary theory.

Not to equate the two entirely, of course. Evolutionary theory is much more logically valid and deserves more space in any discourse.

But I think that denying religion and more importantly the denial of the validity of religion is just a matter of ignoring the entire history of man in favor of progress. I don't think that the faithful should be treated delicately, I just think that there should be lines that can be drawn. By all means, piss people off by telling them that they are ignoring the words of Christ. I just think it's silly to tell people that their God isn't real and expecting that to do anything but hinder a logical, thoughtful dialog.

And in the interests of full disclosure, I am totally drunk right now.