Was watching an interview with Bill Bill Maher.
He said there was a myth in america that people can be religious and still be intelligent. He said it's false, and that people who believe in something have his tolerance but not his respect.
He's a comedian, but he was dead serious when he said this.
Now i know many of you are agnostics and athiests.
But seriously, this statements pretty false.
Even if you don't believe in religion, surely one can see that there are many many christians in north america.
There are Christians with Phd's and docters and lawyers.
Many of them.
There is a biologist in the University of Alberta, a devoted Evangelical christian, who teaches biology courses. The U of A isn't a chump university.
I may gripe about intellectual dishonesty in colleges and universities....but professors in colleges tend not to be stupid, even if you disagree with them.
I know his movie is pretty harmless. From what ive seen.
But his statements in his interviews have the mark of misplaced arrogance. Fine if he thinks it's stupid. He make think believing in it is stupid.
But the people who believe it, aren't stupid.
Im sure many of you have colleuges and
There ARE intellegent christians in america.
Moderator: Available
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
Faith in anything under whatever language, and understanding/experience beyond our capacity to communicate has nothing to do with the binary calculator tool part of our brain that some people mistakenly label the "self".
The act of sentient existence is so much more complex and simple than any intellectual exercise can hope to encapsulate or communicate.
It is what it is, and the "intellect" can only spin like a pinwheel in the winds of the void
The act of sentient existence is so much more complex and simple than any intellectual exercise can hope to encapsulate or communicate.
It is what it is, and the "intellect" can only spin like a pinwheel in the winds of the void
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
I watched the movie. His point is religious dogma is destroying the planet, and even if your religious you know that's true. He has no problem with spirituality, but he is VERY against, as anyone should be, people believing that they have the answer. One of the best quotes in the movie was paraphrased "people that know what happens when you die do not. Why? Because I don't, and you don't possess intellectually capabilities that I don't have."
He interviews people who are selling answers, who either have no doubt about anything or don't believe a word they're saying but are in a better position because they've preyed upon lonely people in the name of religion.
He interviews people who are selling answers, who either have no doubt about anything or don't believe a word they're saying but are in a better position because they've preyed upon lonely people in the name of religion.
Depends on the spirituality.TSDguy wrote:I watched the movie. His point is religious dogma is destroying the planet, and even if your religious you know that's true. He has no problem with spirituality, but he is VERY against, as anyone should be, people believing that they have the answer. One of the best quotes in the movie was paraphrased "people that know what happens when you die do not. Why? Because I don't, and you don't possess intellectually capabilities that I don't have."
He interviews people who are selling answers, who either have no doubt about anything or don't believe a word they're saying but are in a better position because they've preyed upon lonely people in the name of religion.
He talked about in his interview how people who don't believe in the bible but believe in the concept of Jesus are pretty much being stupid, and he can't respect them.
He does respect a belief in the possibility of a creator.
The argument he uses about religion as something that devides can be used in context of world leaders.
I could easily say that all world problems are caused by 'leaders' and governments.
Hell the anarchist crowd groups religion and political leaders in the same category, in fact it is often argued that religion is often used to divide people, through use of political leaders. My sociology prof was an anarchist, and would rant and rave at how leaders would use religion to devide people.
And he explained how in an increasingly secular world, now Libertarian ideals vs Socialist/communist ideals are being used in the west to divide people, while an older dichotomy is being used in the east with religius means. Remember, the first intifada between palistine and isreal was secular and relatively peaceful, there was significant involvement of Palestinian Christians within the PLO working with them.
Then as schit got bad, the nationlistic struggle became a religious one.
Remember south America? Communist governments that were elected by the people were overthrown by governments with alternative political aims.
Chechnya is 100 times worse then anything that is going on in Isreal and palistine. That conflict is getting way too much over exposure. We had a relatively secular country trying to break away from the former soviet union. THey got crushed. And not surprising, guess what? The Chechnyans became religious extremists after getting their asses kicked.
Now lets look at IRan:
Basically, someone got scared the commies would take over, put in the shah, who pissed everyone off, then the people decided the clerics would be great. Too bad they aren't. Ron paul talks about this all the time.
Look at it this way: Political leaders once used religion(and look at buddhist history as well) to justify violence.
Now it's about political ideology and approche. It used to be Commies vs capitalists.
Hell THAT is dying off too.
So whats left now? More complicated politics.
So yes, religion divides the world.
But it's the LEADERS that use religion, and if religion were to vanish, it will be leaders who continue to divide it. Maybe the pope and Ayatollahs used to have the power to start wars.
Now they can't.
Who creates war today? It's the leaders of nations that start wars today.
Since as long as we can remember, nations have ALWAYS acted in their own self-interest first and foremost. To come to the defense of allies is usually done in the name of self interest. Also note, some enemies used to be allies. Why did they break apart? Self interest.
Nothing wrong with national self interest, but even in the time of rome and greece, where religion often took a back seat, people killed eachother over....national self interest, the good of the country, for king and country.
Lets look at chinese history. Though the common people tended to be religious, a quick look the history of their upper classes shows the nobility tended to be agnostic/athiestic. I have read some published works in my college on the subject of psychology and religion. Had a section on chinese religions, and it confirmed that the upperclass was not the most religious. Qin and legalism was more or less a secular philosophy, and he killed a schit load of people.
Guess who started most of the wars in Chinese history? The leaders. Guess who were the leaders? NOble houses and emperors and kings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7ehbE1vc0
Alan moore discusses anarchism and world leaders 2:11 minutes into the film.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.
That's as good as you can get. As long as he's not beating people who believe in jesus (and many of them need a good beating) it's all good.AAAhmed46 wrote:He talked about in his interview how people who don't believe in the bible but believe in the concept of Jesus are pretty much being stupid, and he can't respect them.
He does respect a belief in the possibility of a creator.
The reason he made the movie, he narrates, is he can't understand why people who are otherwise healthy and intelligent and rational can be so divided that they simultaneously believe in magic. It's REALLY confusing for me as well. One of the guys he interviews mentions santa, and Bill says "no of course you wouldn't believe in santa flying to every house in the world in one night in a sled pulled by magical reindeer, that's ridiculous." And yet people that you sit next to at work or drive next to or run the country believe in a magical man that could walk on water and raise dead bodies back to life and was born to a virgin and people living 600 years and whatever other stuff... it blows my mind.
Some thoughts:
People like to fight, and they like to invoke causes, and religion will be one of those causes because many religions have a pseudo certain, us-over-them mentality (eg, if you're not born again, you're toast; we have the only answer). Does that mean war and conflict would fade away without religion? Probably not. You think the Catholics would have been excited about the Protestant occupation if it was a nondenominational british on irish invasion? Doubtful. And when people turn to religion in conflict, it's usually because they need a justification, or external source of confirmation... that won't go away without religion. So maybe those who disfavor religion should be worried about our propensity to seek irrational confirmation and comfort rather than the religious expression of that need?
We do know that cultures in turmoil seek a return to tradition and stability, and a nation's traditional religion is a common outlet. This is one of the reasons why there is an Islamic Resurgence, what with those traditional cultures clashing with modern civilization and rapid change. As for the motivations of nations, I wouldn't say it's based on national self interest anymore... the USA may promote causes abroad for its own gain, but many nations support causes that have no payback (disaster relief, etc; cynics will cite prestige and goodwill benefits) or support their brethren, eg, the aid of Iran and others toward the Bosnians made a bigger impression on them than America's lukewarm and secular support.
People are perfectly welcome to find Maher's message irritating and insulting. All of those people are welcome to find the same faults in the messages of most organized religions. HE'S certain he's right and he's condemning the beliefs of others; that's how most religion operates. People who tell you, "oh, I'm jewish / catholic / evangelical / hindu / whatever, but I'm completely comfortable with every other religion in the world as well as atheists" have to be operating from only a few perspectives:
1) they know they're right and you're wrong, and they're happy to let you live in a fool's paradise. What does this mean about people who believe theirs is the only path to salvation? Would any of you let your neighbors cheerfully smoke 6 packs a day and eat only bacon in the misguided belief it's good for their health? You'd probably try to talk them out of it unless you didn't care what happened to them, unless there was such a sense of futility or PC appropriateness that the cost of their health was less.
2) they're just culturally religious and they're not firmly wedded to the beliefs. What do we make of the many Catholics who use birth control or have abortions or same sex relationships? Do they... have some insight the Pope lacks? Or do they just kinda do the Catholicism thing because that's how they were raised and its not that important? How could eternity be not that important?
3) a few may have the belief that "truth is one, paths are many" and religions are just different reflections of the same underlying truth. Considering how different they are, and how different their apparently mutually exclusive claims, it seems that what matters to this set is just that you believe in something, because being spiritual has value. I find it hard to believe that they can take their faith that seriously, if it doesn't matter if someone converts from Jew to Christian to Shinto to Muslim, believing all paths are equal.
The most rational thing for someone who thinks they have the only truth and that others are lost is to politely, but diligently try to recruit, or possess a belief system that says the others aren't really worth saving. I do respect people who come to my door trying to help me in their sincere belief that I need to be a Witness, but I don't believe them.
The last thing here is that Maher doesn't mean people are stupid when they are religious. Of course there are brilliant well educated Christians, etc. What he means is there's a flaw or gullibility he finds disturbing that's common to religious people. There is no law that says Einstein wouldn't have sent 5,000$ to a guy who emailed him promising a Nigerian fortune if he could just cover the cost of transferring the funds, etc. We all know Einstein was smart, but if he'd fallen for that one, he would have been pretty stupid, too.
And to Maher, if you're going to chuckle at all the foolish things people in other cultures believe just because they were raised that way and taught certain myths, well, you ought to be pretty skeptical of the myths you were taught, too.
People like to fight, and they like to invoke causes, and religion will be one of those causes because many religions have a pseudo certain, us-over-them mentality (eg, if you're not born again, you're toast; we have the only answer). Does that mean war and conflict would fade away without religion? Probably not. You think the Catholics would have been excited about the Protestant occupation if it was a nondenominational british on irish invasion? Doubtful. And when people turn to religion in conflict, it's usually because they need a justification, or external source of confirmation... that won't go away without religion. So maybe those who disfavor religion should be worried about our propensity to seek irrational confirmation and comfort rather than the religious expression of that need?
We do know that cultures in turmoil seek a return to tradition and stability, and a nation's traditional religion is a common outlet. This is one of the reasons why there is an Islamic Resurgence, what with those traditional cultures clashing with modern civilization and rapid change. As for the motivations of nations, I wouldn't say it's based on national self interest anymore... the USA may promote causes abroad for its own gain, but many nations support causes that have no payback (disaster relief, etc; cynics will cite prestige and goodwill benefits) or support their brethren, eg, the aid of Iran and others toward the Bosnians made a bigger impression on them than America's lukewarm and secular support.
People are perfectly welcome to find Maher's message irritating and insulting. All of those people are welcome to find the same faults in the messages of most organized religions. HE'S certain he's right and he's condemning the beliefs of others; that's how most religion operates. People who tell you, "oh, I'm jewish / catholic / evangelical / hindu / whatever, but I'm completely comfortable with every other religion in the world as well as atheists" have to be operating from only a few perspectives:
1) they know they're right and you're wrong, and they're happy to let you live in a fool's paradise. What does this mean about people who believe theirs is the only path to salvation? Would any of you let your neighbors cheerfully smoke 6 packs a day and eat only bacon in the misguided belief it's good for their health? You'd probably try to talk them out of it unless you didn't care what happened to them, unless there was such a sense of futility or PC appropriateness that the cost of their health was less.
2) they're just culturally religious and they're not firmly wedded to the beliefs. What do we make of the many Catholics who use birth control or have abortions or same sex relationships? Do they... have some insight the Pope lacks? Or do they just kinda do the Catholicism thing because that's how they were raised and its not that important? How could eternity be not that important?
3) a few may have the belief that "truth is one, paths are many" and religions are just different reflections of the same underlying truth. Considering how different they are, and how different their apparently mutually exclusive claims, it seems that what matters to this set is just that you believe in something, because being spiritual has value. I find it hard to believe that they can take their faith that seriously, if it doesn't matter if someone converts from Jew to Christian to Shinto to Muslim, believing all paths are equal.
The most rational thing for someone who thinks they have the only truth and that others are lost is to politely, but diligently try to recruit, or possess a belief system that says the others aren't really worth saving. I do respect people who come to my door trying to help me in their sincere belief that I need to be a Witness, but I don't believe them.
The last thing here is that Maher doesn't mean people are stupid when they are religious. Of course there are brilliant well educated Christians, etc. What he means is there's a flaw or gullibility he finds disturbing that's common to religious people. There is no law that says Einstein wouldn't have sent 5,000$ to a guy who emailed him promising a Nigerian fortune if he could just cover the cost of transferring the funds, etc. We all know Einstein was smart, but if he'd fallen for that one, he would have been pretty stupid, too.
And to Maher, if you're going to chuckle at all the foolish things people in other cultures believe just because they were raised that way and taught certain myths, well, you ought to be pretty skeptical of the myths you were taught, too.
--Ian
IJ, have you seen the movie? He is promoting doubt above all else. He never claims to have any of the answers. He's agnostic, not atheist. His secondary theme again is "why are you so certain about something you can't be certain about?"
In that regards, I disagree with Maher. Sure there can be a god, but the odds are so overwhelmingly against, with zero evidence supporting one, that you may as well say there is no god.
Edit: I think you can enjoy this movie even if you are religious. You probably won't enjoy it if you're convinced a certain part of your faith is unquestionable, are anti-other religions, anti-gay, pro-dogma etc. But then I went to see it with 2 agnostics and an another atheist so don't hold me to that.
In that regards, I disagree with Maher. Sure there can be a god, but the odds are so overwhelmingly against, with zero evidence supporting one, that you may as well say there is no god.
Edit: I think you can enjoy this movie even if you are religious. You probably won't enjoy it if you're convinced a certain part of your faith is unquestionable, are anti-other religions, anti-gay, pro-dogma etc. But then I went to see it with 2 agnostics and an another atheist so don't hold me to that.
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
I haven't seen the movie but understand the idea. Dawkins himself points out there are very few atheists who are completely sure compared to theists who are completely sure because the atheists are going by evidence rather than faith and it's not that easy to prove the negative. He probably overestimates the thought that goes into some atheists calculation but is definitely right on about this one.
Maher is a comedian but this isn't just a Borat; it's more along the lines of the Hitchens and Dawkins attack on pseudocertainty. That's an important issue these days w.r.t electing someone who may think the end times are near and our recent experience with a minimally self doubting George Bush. We all handle stress differently, but I sure would sleep better at night if our President took war a little more seriously and with a bit more introspection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s1odqQTKyU
Maher is a comedian but this isn't just a Borat; it's more along the lines of the Hitchens and Dawkins attack on pseudocertainty. That's an important issue these days w.r.t electing someone who may think the end times are near and our recent experience with a minimally self doubting George Bush. We all handle stress differently, but I sure would sleep better at night if our President took war a little more seriously and with a bit more introspection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s1odqQTKyU
--Ian
Yeah but there are christian paleontologists, one came on corbert.
While we got a guy at the University of Alberta in edmonton.
No, they do not have the same beliefs as mainstream christians. Hell my beliefs as a Muslim tend to be deviant from what is orthodox.
Out of the three critics were talking about, Only Dawkins uses hard logical arguments. Hitchens and Maher use Rhetoric, I don't like Dawkins opinions, and think he comes off sometimes as arrogant.
But he argues his points very well, and argues them with strong arguments, and seems to me he's truly made an intellectual decision.
Hitchens and Mayer just come off as jerks.
While we got a guy at the University of Alberta in edmonton.
No, they do not have the same beliefs as mainstream christians. Hell my beliefs as a Muslim tend to be deviant from what is orthodox.
Out of the three critics were talking about, Only Dawkins uses hard logical arguments. Hitchens and Maher use Rhetoric, I don't like Dawkins opinions, and think he comes off sometimes as arrogant.
But he argues his points very well, and argues them with strong arguments, and seems to me he's truly made an intellectual decision.
Hitchens and Mayer just come off as jerks.
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
Dawkins has a real point to argue, and is sort of the spearhead attacking religion. Maher's movie was partly a comedy, and partly something you talk about over coffee or a beer after the show (it has a very ominous message, as anything regarding Islam in the Netherlands is going to have, but it's still more fun than serious.)
He's arguably dicky, but the people in the movie mostly made dicks out of themselves. In one scene a truckers implies he's going to hurt Maher for questioning god and walks out on the interview. His friends stick it out and Maher shows them relative respect and they relatively respect him. For the most part, it's just conversation. The dicks come in the form of people selling things, or claiming they know exactly what the truth is despite lacking proof.
He's arguably dicky, but the people in the movie mostly made dicks out of themselves. In one scene a truckers implies he's going to hurt Maher for questioning god and walks out on the interview. His friends stick it out and Maher shows them relative respect and they relatively respect him. For the most part, it's just conversation. The dicks come in the form of people selling things, or claiming they know exactly what the truth is despite lacking proof.
