“U don’t get to put your unreason on the shelf with my reason” EXACTLY “Show me a God, and I will believe in Him” I’m not going to based on questionable anecdotes.
GET BACK ON THOR’S SHELF!!!
The second video, yes exactly exactlly exactly.
“IF NOT BELIEVING IS A RELIGION, THEN I ASK YOU CHRISTIANS HOW MANY RELIGIONS YOU HAVE?” YEPYEPYEP
Vishnu ftw, though
of atheism is a religion, not knitting is a hobby.
Atheism itself is not a religion; it’s a belief about a single truth statement. (Is there a God, yes or no?) By the same token, theism is not a religion. But there are religions that are atheistic (Buddhism is a clear example) and religions that are theistic.
I tried to show here that atheist critiques of “religion” in general fail because religion is a much broader category than just belief in God. Some people devote themselves religiously to watching football, complete with daily, weekly and annual rituals. Some people devote themselves religiously to the beliefs of their nations – beliefs in democracy or communism or what-have-you. Atheists could certainly be religious in either of these senses. The question Maher is concerned about is whether atheists could be religiously (or dogmatically) devoted to rationalism, or empiricism. I think this can be the case, when for those atheists rationalism and empiricism are what is fundamentally true and itself cannot be questioned.
Of course, I have no idea whether Bill Maher or you yourself are religiously devoted to anything. I think you’d have to put together a highly technical definition of “religion” and do a fearless moral inventory on your own. But I am convinced that humans are naturally religious beings, as Daniel Dennet has amicably demonstrated.
Great videos. Bill Maher says this very well. Atheism is definitely NOT a religion.
The beliefin and worshipof a superhumancontrollingpower.
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Worship: Honor given to someone in recognition of their merit.
Superhuman: Having or showing exceptional ability or powers.
Exceptional: Unusually good; outstanding.
Controlling: Determining the behavior or supervising the running of.
Power: The ability to do something or act in a particular way.
Bill Maher: You can make some cute arguments that I might someday consider printing out and taping up on my fridge, and I’m just a man, however Godlike I am compared to you.
I find “reason” interesting, but ultimately I can subvert it, which requires an immeasurably higher intelligence than your own, and that’s not saying much at all compared to the unparalleled understanding that makes your every bullshit assumption and statement in that first video look like the first day of spring when a caveman popped out of the side of a mountain, pointed at a squirrel and said “durrrr… tree”. No dumbass. It’s a squirrel because Isaid it’s a squirrel.
You act like “reason” is an unquestionable universal building block. To me, the shit you call “reason” is child’s play. “Unreason”, as you might expect, makes no fucking sense whatsoever because it’s simply the enormous cluster of all the shit you can’t even begin to comprehend balled up into one word.
Can you say “omniscience“?
Logic isn’t even a hobby for me anymore… it’s my own personal slave and it follows wherever my mind dares to lead it.
So if you would like to create a reality of your own within my reality, I suggest you consult me before leaving messes like that from now on.
*does the got your nose thing with the shit you call “reason”…*
*dumps it in my ocean of logic”
Zion’s shelf, bitch. First trophy: Your credibility.
And you’re not getting it back without an explanation for why you feel you deserve to play God, followed by a sincere apology to all those who might believe in one. And, atheism is what Idefine it as.
“If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky…”
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
In order for you to believe that Jesus Christ can come down from the sky, you must first admit that Jesus exists, you must then believe that Jesus Christ exists in the sky, and only then will I even consider allowing you to borrow MY conditional command “if” to place after it what it would require for you to subsequently forsake Jesus Christ and hand me your soul for all eternity and I sure as Hell don’t want your sorry ass down here with me for all eternity…
I would say “bless you”, but that’s not my department. Why Vishnu? I am so much hotter and more badass.
Bill Maher is completely spot-on. How can the absence of belief constitute a belief? The absence of anything is just that; absence. It’s not a sense of ‘knowing deep down that something is true, then denying it so you can continue to sin’. It’s an anti-belief. A void of faith. Not fucking having faith or belief in any deity whatsoever.
The act of insisting that atheism is some type of faith system is an argument borne of utter desperation. They can’t prove the existence of their god so they attempt to turn it around and say, ‘Well, you’re part of a religion too!’.
Desperation aside, christians are taught to proselytize. They have to make someone else believe. It is their burden to create faith in others. If the pressure were off we wouldn’t see so much desperation, so many stupid arguments (” but…but atheism IS a religion!”) or the need to change everything in a society and legislate their fellow citizens to death until the law reflects their *and ONLY their* religious beliefs. A lot of the stupid shit we see them do is a direct result of them feeling as if there’s a personal mandate to spread christianity until all else is obliterated.
Step one is making you believe that atheism actually is a religion. Step two is convincing you it’s the wrong one.
@T3hZ10n - Nothing you said there is coherent to me. Vishnu b/c of his many arms. Plus he’s blue. I mean it can’t get much hotter. VEEEESHEEENOOOO. We’re pals.
Atheism is not a religion. It is based on reality, not the fairy tales as spouted by the world’s major religions. Many would believe my chosen philosophy of fascism to be a religion. At least the State is real. It actually exists. It can be seen, heard, touched etc. Religion is for fruitcakes who don’t know any better. It deserves to be crushed under the jackboot of realism.
I don’t even get why you have to tell people this. people must be dumb asses. It’s not possible to have a religion where there isn’t one.
pure D retards. I’m a regular fan of Bill M. he’s my main man.
I made a tribute to my bastard self, stop on over. do the bunny hop. just click on the dog in the hoodie and you’re there. wag wag?
I really don’t understand why this argument (on either side) is important. Whether atheism is a religion or not has no real consequence or effect. The point is, most atheists aren’t nearly as agnostic as they claim. It is not that they simply have a lack of belief, but have conviction and confidence that there is no God. This is a “belief”, irregardless of whether you try to mask this belief in agnosticism or not.
The issue here isn’t whether or not atheism is a religion…but that atheists criticize theists when they hold the same nature of belief. Whether you call this belief “faith” or not isn’t important. (Please no “how can lack of belief be a belief!” comments please. Just go back and re-read my comment…since obviously you just entirely missed the point.) I don’t care. I’m not especially interested in silly and elementary word games. To compare the existence of God to that of a leprechaun, loch ness, unicorn, Santa Claus, or a flying spaghetti monster is so moronic, I’ve quit trying to respond to such a terrible “philosophical” argument. (Took a few seconds to breathe to not get annoyed at the ridiculousness of the argument).
I’m sorry but posts like this annoy me. Just this tactic that many atheists employ of “let me find the worst arguments of Christianity…argue against those arguments….thus disproving Christianity”. As a non-religious agnostic….I just see this tactic often and its totally weak and lame.
@wizexel22 - You said you are Agnostic. An Agnostic claims to not know whether God exists or not. If you don’t know whether God exists, you cannot possibly know the details of an existing God’s presence, nature, or anything else. Therefore, how can you confidently proclaim that comparing God “to that of a leprechaun, loch ness, unicorn, Santa Claus, or a flying spaghetti monster is so moronic” when you couldn’t possibly verify as an Agnostic what those incomparable qualities even are?
Bill Maher is confused as to why some might consider atheism a religion. Instead of asking specifically how this could be, he apparently has some sort of mystical faith in himself that leads him to believe that if he says atheism isn’t a religion, he’s somehow right without having to at least make an attempt to understand why others might not agree. The absence of belief need not be said or explained, but I’ll help you out on this one.
Nothing does not exist. It is a fundamental truth. The only reason to put forth so much effort into explaining why something isn’t is clearly an attempt to persuade others or quell one’s own fear of the contrary.
“Maybe if I (dis)prove it, then perhaps the nonexistent man in the clouds will stop nagging at my unconscious, and allow me to embrace what I believe and compel others to do the same… that is, embrace what I believe.”
It doesn’t work that way, but I am open to just about any ideas that will improve the world through understanding. What makes you think it is better to see atheism the way you (fail to) see it?
Atheism is not a religion. But most atheists, as human beings in general, have religious beliefs. That is, they individually have attitudes about the purpose and aim, some ultimate reality, of their lives that they should fulfill. By evolutionary process, or divine design, or by both, we instinctively attribute (or discover?) purpose to our existence and try to live according to it.
@T3hZ10n - First of all, the authoritarian attitude just makes you look like an asshole. When’s the last time you took a class on religion? That’s what I thought. I don’t need to be schooled on fairly simple terms by you, as you seem inclined to explain. Bill Maher, though I ‘m not a fan otherwise, explained why a common notion is wrong by its definition. A-theism is purely a lack of theism, or belief in God. Atheists may or may not act religiously in life or hold steadfast to equally nonviable, life-centered nonsense (though that’s hard to accomplish), but that doesn’t change Atheism’s definition, perhaps only culturally-related correlations (explainable by the fact that most Atheists come from similar backgrounds) “The
only
reason to put forth so much effort into explaining why something
isn’t
is clearly an attempt to persuade others or quell one’s own fear of the contrary.” It’s funny how you make such a loud attempt to correct anyone who assumes even a common understanding of basic language on your part, and yet you are convinced you know the deep psyche of an entire group of people, and that they must all have the same intentions. Hypocrisy much? Anyway, Atheists have pretty good reason to loudly dispel the nonsense of religion. Namely, because it is routinely thrown in our faces on a constant basis, to the point that religion is “expected” in some places in a similar way (usually the same places) people are assumed to be heterosexual.
“What makes you think it is better to see atheism the way you (fail to) see it?” How is it that you have the audacity to tell me that my perspective (an intrinsically subjective experience) is “false,” yet you take pains to explain that the very root of commonly spoken language imposes on your self-manipulated definitions of them? I don’t respond to elitist arrogance, so I will not directly respond to this question until you put it in a more appropriate, respectful way. ( LOL that sounds just like something I’d say to one of the 3 year olds at work.)
u and ur italian music. We all know that italians are degenerates. I wish my mom would knock off her italian pride. It’s like, I DONT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW. duhh
@DrummingMediocrity - Verification has nothing to do with it. If it did, then how can the atheist, who claims agnosticism make any arguments either? So basically, according to that logic, the only people who can speak on the subject are people who 100% believe in God or 100% believe God does not exist….which would be entirely pointless.
Further, being agnostic doesn’t mean one can’t comment on the topic. Many physicists may not necessarily believe in string/M-theory…but that doesn’t mean they don’t know what it is or can’t comment on its validity.
We have to deal with language, or else any argument is pointless. It should be completely obvious why the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is an immediate logical “fail”. God and the FSM are not on on equal epistemic grounds. This should be obvious after taking Pre-Intro-to-Pre-Philosophy 101. So while I don’t know with any certainty whether God exists or not, I can certainly knock down a terribly bad philosophical or logical argument (if I can even call it that….as its just a pure fallacy more than an actual argument).
Again, I’m not here arguing from a theistic position. I just think the FSM and the like are such incredibly lame arguments, that its frustrating to see pretentious morons like Maher (or Dawkins) smugly try to strike down Christianity using such silly and juvenile arguments.
“It should be completely obvious why the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is an immediate logical “fail”.”
It is very obvious, but logic penetrates a whole Hell of a lot deeper than most people realize purely from intuition.
As a nihilist, I see right through his atheist bullshit, but that’s beside the point.
@wizexel22 - You didn’t actually give me a reason, but instead seemed to re-explain THAT the concept of God is more valid than a more obvious logical fallacy, not WHY.
Most “Atheists” are Agnostic as far as most Theists are Agnostic to the concept of a celestial teapot. You can’t prove something that doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t mean you can’t show a whole bunch of evidence that suggests it doesn’t. To say that there are only two extremes to the spectrum is silly when most non-believers recognize the presence of statistical analysis, which will almost never deem anything at 100% validity.
“God and the FSM are not on on equal epistemic grounds. This should be obvious after taking Pre-Intro-to-Pre-Philosophy 101. So while I don’t know with any certainty whether God exists or not, I can certainly knock down a terribly bad philosophical or logical argument” Go for it.
@T3hZ10n - Maybe you should explain that in a way that goes beyond “i know and most people don’t” to show that you actually do know and are competent enough to express your knowledge in a coherent fashion.
@DrummingMediocrity - It doesn’t take a genius to see he is anti-contradicting himself throughout the video, but apparently it does take a genius like myself to see that many of his statements themselves are, in-fact, still contradictions.
Atheism, just like Taoism, is an attempt to explain something that is natural and must necessarily have no explanation (i.e. “nothing does not exist”). Atheism (the concept) doesn’t exist in its own right, but only in the presence of religion. Some atheists, though claiming to not believe in or worship a God, STILL THINK ABOUT THE (IM)POSSIBILITY OF ONE, and often hear about religion, and wonder about it, and talk about it.
An atheist does not believe in or worship (a) God… but there is no evidence anywhere suggesting that one exists anyway, so what “God” are atheists referring to? THEIR OWN VERSION OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE GOD TO BE.
“God” could be the fucking world around you. God could be the “void”. If “God” is omnipresent, like most religions claim, it doesn’t fucking matter how you define the word “atheism”.
It’s like, if you don’t believe in God, then stop talking about Him, stop thinking about Him, and stop denying His existence. Bill says it takes so little of his time, yet I see he still took the time to say that it takes so little of his time…
It doesn’t take a fucking genius to admit:
“If God exists, He will exist whether I believe in Him or not.”
Even a so-called “atheist” can come to this conclusion…
You have to have a God in mind to deny His/Her/Its existence because “God” has been claimed to be (literally) everything imaginable and unimagineable, so when you say you don’t believe in God… which God(s) are you referring to? And don’t think about or answer that, because whether you believe or not, it doesn’t matter, by mentioning or thinking about God, you just made Him in your own image.
@T3hZ10n - Most people refer to a deity as a purposeful, knowing creator of the universe. Therefore something like the natural world as a “God” is irrelevant to the concept, at least in the west. There is no reason to broaden it when the implication is so obvious it needn’t be said (much like the nonexistence of nothing, as you said, which was really well stated, btw).
Again, it is bothered to think about because most people feel pressured and oppressed by the overwhelming and *loud* presence of religion in our (and most) culture(s). If the majority started to base their belief systems on facts, or at least rational ideas rather than irrational, comforting nonsense then the conversation would be moot. But they don’t, and neither is the tired conversation.
What pisses me off man, for shiz, is being looked at like some kind of freak for being a vegan. My moral values in terms of animals are very rational and consistent with good will and empathy towards others. Yet the irrational nonsense of religion is “normal” because it is acceptable and common, and because most people don’t think past the end of their schema of subjective nonsense.
“There is no reason to broaden it when the implication is so obvious it needn’t be said (much like the nonexistence of nothing, as you said, which was really well stated, btw).”
Lol. Apparently it’s something that needs to be said.
So, if atheism is a religion then most of the world follow thousands of religions at once. All those Christians, they’re not just Christians but they’re Not-Muslims, Not-Hindus, Not-Jews, Not-Buddhists, Not-Shinto and so on and so forth. Since the lack of belief in a God is a religion then their lack of belief in the version of God (or Gods, or things like transcendence, reincarnation, Lord Xenu, etc.) are also religions and they must count themselves not merely as Christians but as all these other UnReligions too.
They’re gonna need a “Religion” bigger box on census forms, methinks…
Comments (25)
“U don’t get to put your unreason on the shelf with my reason” EXACTLY
“Show me a God, and I will believe in Him” I’m not going to based on questionable anecdotes.
GET BACK ON THOR’S SHELF!!!
The second video, yes exactly exactlly exactly.
“IF NOT BELIEVING IS A RELIGION, THEN I ASK YOU CHRISTIANS HOW MANY RELIGIONS YOU HAVE?”
YEPYEPYEP
Vishnu ftw, though
of atheism is a religion, not knitting is a hobby.
Atheism itself is not a religion; it’s a belief about a single truth statement. (Is there a God, yes or no?) By the same token, theism is not a religion. But there are religions that are atheistic (Buddhism is a clear example) and religions that are theistic.
I tried to show here that atheist critiques of “religion” in general fail because religion is a much broader category than just belief in God. Some people devote themselves religiously to watching football, complete with daily, weekly and annual rituals. Some people devote themselves religiously to the beliefs of their nations – beliefs in democracy or communism or what-have-you. Atheists could certainly be religious in either of these senses. The question Maher is concerned about is whether atheists could be religiously (or dogmatically) devoted to rationalism, or empiricism. I think this can be the case, when for those atheists rationalism and empiricism are what is fundamentally true and itself cannot be questioned.
Of course, I have no idea whether Bill Maher or you yourself are religiously devoted to anything. I think you’d have to put together a highly technical definition of “religion” and do a fearless moral inventory on your own. But I am convinced that humans are naturally religious beings, as Daniel Dennet has amicably demonstrated.
Great videos. Bill Maher says this very well. Atheism is definitely NOT a religion.
@flapper_femme_fatale - not having a hobby is my hobby
Religion:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power.
Belief:
An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Worship:
Honor given to someone in recognition of their merit.
Superhuman:
Having or showing exceptional ability or powers.
Exceptional:
Unusually good; outstanding.
Controlling:
Determining the behavior or supervising the running of.
Power:
The ability to do something or act in a particular way.
Bill Maher:
You can make some cute arguments that I might someday consider printing out and taping up on my fridge, and I’m just a man, however Godlike I am compared to you.
I find “reason” interesting, but ultimately I can subvert it, which requires an immeasurably higher intelligence than your own, and that’s not saying much at all compared to the unparalleled understanding that makes your every bullshit assumption and statement in that first video look like the first day of spring when a caveman popped out of the side of a mountain, pointed at a squirrel and said “durrrr… tree”. No dumbass. It’s a squirrel because I said it’s a squirrel.
You act like “reason” is an unquestionable universal building block. To me, the shit you call “reason” is child’s play. “Unreason”, as you might expect, makes no fucking sense whatsoever because it’s simply the enormous cluster of all the shit you can’t even begin to comprehend balled up into one word.
Can you say “omniscience“?
Logic isn’t even a hobby for me anymore… it’s my own personal slave and it follows wherever my mind dares to lead it.
So if you would like to create a reality of your own within my reality, I suggest you consult me before leaving messes like that from now on.
*does the got your nose thing with the shit you call “reason”…*
*dumps it in my ocean of logic”
Zion’s shelf, bitch. First trophy: Your credibility.
And you’re not getting it back without an explanation for why you feel you deserve to play God, followed by a sincere apology to all those who might believe in one. And, atheism is what I define it as.
“If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky…”
Belief:
An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
In order for you to believe that Jesus Christ can come down from the sky, you must first admit that Jesus exists, you must then believe that Jesus Christ exists in the sky, and only then will I even consider allowing you to borrow MY conditional command “if” to place after it what it would require for you to subsequently forsake Jesus Christ and hand me your soul for all eternity and I sure as Hell don’t want your sorry ass down here with me for all eternity…
http://youtu.be/NMyo4AKnj58
@DrummingMediocrity - “Vishnu”
I would say “bless you”, but that’s not my department. Why Vishnu? I am so much hotter and more badass.
Bill Maher is completely spot-on. How can the absence of belief constitute a belief? The absence of anything is just that; absence. It’s not a sense of ‘knowing deep down that something is true, then denying it so you can continue to sin’. It’s an anti-belief. A void of faith. Not fucking having faith or belief in any deity whatsoever.
The act of insisting that atheism is some type of faith system is an argument borne of utter desperation. They can’t prove the existence of their god so they attempt to turn it around and say, ‘Well, you’re part of a religion too!’.
Desperation aside, christians are taught to proselytize. They have to make someone else believe. It is their burden to create faith in others. If the pressure were off we wouldn’t see so much desperation, so many stupid arguments (” but…but atheism IS a religion!”) or the need to change everything in a society and legislate their fellow citizens to death until the law reflects their *and ONLY their* religious beliefs. A lot of the stupid shit we see them do is a direct result of them feeling as if there’s a personal mandate to spread christianity until all else is obliterated.
Step one is making you believe that atheism actually is a religion. Step two is convincing you it’s the wrong one.
@T3hZ10n - Nothing you said there is coherent to me. Vishnu b/c of his many arms. Plus he’s blue. I mean it can’t get much hotter. VEEEESHEEENOOOO. We’re pals.
Atheism is not a religion. It is based on reality, not the fairy tales as spouted by the world’s major religions. Many would believe my chosen philosophy of fascism to be a religion. At least the State is real. It actually exists. It can be seen, heard, touched etc. Religion is for fruitcakes who don’t know any better. It deserves to be crushed under the jackboot of realism.
I don’t even get why you have to tell people this. people must be dumb asses. It’s not possible to have a religion where there isn’t one.
pure D retards. I’m a regular fan of Bill M. he’s my main man.
I made a tribute to my bastard self, stop on over. do the bunny hop. just click on the dog in the hoodie and you’re there. wag wag?
I really don’t understand why this argument (on either side) is important. Whether atheism is a religion or not has no real consequence or effect. The point is, most atheists aren’t nearly as agnostic as they claim. It is not that they simply have a lack of belief, but have conviction and confidence that there is no God. This is a “belief”, irregardless of whether you try to mask this belief in agnosticism or not.
The issue here isn’t whether or not atheism is a religion…but that atheists criticize theists when they hold the same nature of belief. Whether you call this belief “faith” or not isn’t important. (Please no “how can lack of belief be a belief!” comments please. Just go back and re-read my comment…since obviously you just entirely missed the point.) I don’t care. I’m not especially interested in silly and elementary word games. To compare the existence of God to that of a leprechaun, loch ness, unicorn, Santa Claus, or a flying spaghetti monster is so moronic, I’ve quit trying to respond to such a terrible “philosophical” argument. (Took a few seconds to breathe to not get annoyed at the ridiculousness of the argument).
I’m sorry but posts like this annoy me. Just this tactic that many atheists employ of “let me find the worst arguments of Christianity…argue against those arguments….thus disproving Christianity”. As a non-religious agnostic….I just see this tactic often and its totally weak and lame.
@LegionOfLucifer - What led to your becoming a Fascist?
@wizexel22 - You said you are Agnostic. An Agnostic claims to not know whether God exists or not. If you don’t know whether God exists, you cannot possibly know the details of an existing God’s presence, nature, or anything else. Therefore, how can you confidently proclaim that comparing God “to that of a leprechaun, loch ness, unicorn, Santa Claus, or a flying spaghetti monster is so moronic” when you couldn’t possibly verify as an Agnostic what those incomparable qualities even are?
@DrummingMediocrity - Beautifully said.
Bill Maher is confused as to why some might consider atheism a religion. Instead of asking specifically how this could be, he apparently has some sort of mystical faith in himself that leads him to believe that if he says atheism isn’t a religion, he’s somehow right without having to at least make an attempt to understand why others might not agree. The absence of belief need not be said or explained, but I’ll help you out on this one.
Nothing does not exist. It is a fundamental truth. The only reason to put forth so much effort into explaining why something isn’t is clearly an attempt to persuade others or quell one’s own fear of the contrary.
“Maybe if I (dis)prove it, then perhaps the nonexistent man in the clouds will stop nagging at my unconscious, and allow me to embrace what I believe and compel others to do the same… that is, embrace what I believe.”
It doesn’t work that way, but I am open to just about any ideas that will improve the world through understanding. What makes you think it is better to see atheism the way you (fail to) see it?
Atheism is not a religion. But most atheists, as human beings in general, have religious beliefs. That is, they individually have attitudes about the purpose and aim, some ultimate reality, of their lives that they should fulfill. By evolutionary process, or divine design, or by both, we instinctively attribute (or discover?) purpose to our existence and try to live according to it.
@T3hZ10n - First of all, the authoritarian attitude just makes you look like an asshole. When’s the last time you took a class on religion? That’s what I thought. I don’t need to be schooled on fairly simple terms by you, as you seem inclined to explain. Bill Maher, though I ‘m not a fan otherwise, explained why a common notion is wrong by its definition. A-theism is purely a lack of theism, or belief in God. Atheists may or may not act religiously in life or hold steadfast to equally nonviable, life-centered nonsense (though that’s hard to accomplish), but that doesn’t change Atheism’s definition, perhaps only culturally-related correlations (explainable by the fact that most Atheists come from similar backgrounds)
“The
only
reason to put forth so much effort into explaining why something
isn’t
is clearly an attempt to persuade others or quell one’s own fear of the contrary.”
It’s funny how you make such a loud attempt to correct anyone who assumes even a common understanding of basic language on your part, and yet you are convinced you know the deep psyche of an entire group of people, and that they must all have the same intentions. Hypocrisy much?
Anyway, Atheists have pretty good reason to loudly dispel the nonsense of religion. Namely, because it is routinely thrown in our faces on a constant basis, to the point that religion is “expected” in some places in a similar way (usually the same places) people are assumed to be heterosexual.
“What makes you think it is better to see atheism the way you (fail to) see it?”
How is it that you have the audacity to tell me that my perspective (an intrinsically subjective experience) is “false,” yet you take pains to explain that the very root of commonly spoken language imposes on your self-manipulated definitions of them?
I don’t respond to elitist arrogance, so I will not directly respond to this question until you put it in a more appropriate, respectful way.
( LOL that sounds just like something I’d say to one of the 3 year olds at work.)
@DrummingMediocrity -
I was addressing that last reply to Bill Maher.
“I don’t need to be schooled on fairly simple terms by you, as you seem inclined to explain.”
I know you don’t. Only the “Beautifully said.” part was for you. x_x
http://youtu.be/V7e9i0VQK-A
My mistake.
@T3hZ10n - oh, lol
u and ur italian music. We all know that italians are degenerates. I wish my mom would knock off her italian pride. It’s like, I DONT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW. duhh
@DrummingMediocrity - Verification has nothing to do with it. If it did, then how can the atheist, who claims agnosticism make any arguments either? So basically, according to that logic, the only people who can speak on the subject are people who 100% believe in God or 100% believe God does not exist….which would be entirely pointless.
Further, being agnostic doesn’t mean one can’t comment on the topic. Many physicists may not necessarily believe in string/M-theory…but that doesn’t mean they don’t know what it is or can’t comment on its validity.
We have to deal with language, or else any argument is pointless. It should be completely obvious why the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is an immediate logical “fail”. God and the FSM are not on on equal epistemic grounds. This should be obvious after taking Pre-Intro-to-Pre-Philosophy 101. So while I don’t know with any certainty whether God exists or not, I can certainly knock down a terribly bad philosophical or logical argument (if I can even call it that….as its just a pure fallacy more than an actual argument).
Again, I’m not here arguing from a theistic position. I just think the FSM and the like are such incredibly lame arguments, that its frustrating to see pretentious morons like Maher (or Dawkins) smugly try to strike down Christianity using such silly and juvenile arguments.
@wizexel22 -
“It should be completely obvious why the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is an immediate logical “fail”.”
It is very obvious, but logic penetrates a whole Hell of a lot deeper than most people realize purely from intuition.
As a nihilist, I see right through his atheist bullshit, but that’s beside the point.
@wizexel22 - You didn’t actually give me a reason, but instead seemed to re-explain THAT the concept of God is more valid than a more obvious logical fallacy, not WHY.
Most “Atheists” are Agnostic as far as most Theists are Agnostic to the concept of a celestial teapot. You can’t prove something that doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t mean you can’t show a whole bunch of evidence that suggests it doesn’t. To say that there are only two extremes to the spectrum is silly when most non-believers recognize the presence of statistical analysis, which will almost never deem anything at 100% validity.
“God and the FSM are not on on equal epistemic
grounds. This should be obvious after taking
Pre-Intro-to-Pre-Philosophy 101. So while I don’t know with any
certainty whether God exists or not, I can certainly knock down a
terribly bad philosophical or logical argument”
Go for it.
@T3hZ10n - Maybe you should explain that in a way that goes beyond “i know and most people don’t” to show that you actually do know and are competent enough to express your knowledge in a coherent fashion.
@DrummingMediocrity - It doesn’t take a genius to see he is anti-contradicting himself throughout the video, but apparently it does take a genius like myself to see that many of his statements themselves are, in-fact, still contradictions.
Atheism, just like Taoism, is an attempt to explain something that is natural and must necessarily have no explanation (i.e. “nothing does not exist”). Atheism (the concept) doesn’t exist in its own right, but only in the presence of religion. Some atheists, though claiming to not believe in or worship a God, STILL THINK ABOUT THE (IM)POSSIBILITY OF ONE, and often hear about religion, and wonder about it, and talk about it.
An atheist does not believe in or worship (a) God… but there is no evidence anywhere suggesting that one exists anyway, so what “God” are atheists referring to? THEIR OWN VERSION OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE GOD TO BE.
“God” could be the fucking world around you. God could be the “void”. If “God” is omnipresent, like most religions claim, it doesn’t fucking matter how you define the word “atheism”.
It’s like, if you don’t believe in God, then stop talking about Him, stop thinking about Him, and stop denying His existence. Bill says it takes so little of his time, yet I see he still took the time to say that it takes so little of his time…
It doesn’t take a fucking genius to admit:
“If God exists, He will exist whether I believe in Him or not.”
Even a so-called “atheist” can come to this conclusion…
You have to have a God in mind to deny His/Her/Its existence because “God” has been claimed to be (literally) everything imaginable and unimagineable, so when you say you don’t believe in God… which God(s) are you referring to? And don’t think about or answer that, because whether you believe or not, it doesn’t matter, by mentioning or thinking about God, you just made Him in your own image.
@T3hZ10n - Most people refer to a deity as a purposeful, knowing creator of the universe. Therefore something like the natural world as a “God” is irrelevant to the concept, at least in the west. There is no reason to broaden it when the implication is so obvious it needn’t be said (much like the nonexistence of nothing, as you said, which was really well stated, btw).
Again, it is bothered to think about because most people feel pressured and oppressed by the overwhelming and *loud* presence of religion in our (and most) culture(s). If the majority started to base their belief systems on facts, or at least rational ideas rather than irrational, comforting nonsense then the conversation would be moot. But they don’t, and neither is the tired conversation.
What pisses me off man, for shiz, is being looked at like some kind of freak for being a vegan. My moral values in terms of animals are very rational and consistent with good will and empathy towards others. Yet the irrational nonsense of religion is “normal” because it is acceptable and common, and because most people don’t think past the end of their schema of subjective nonsense.
(:
@DrummingMediocrity -
“There is no reason to broaden it when the implication is so obvious it needn’t be said (much like the nonexistence of nothing, as you said, which was really well stated, btw).”
Lol. Apparently it’s something that needs to be said.
So, if atheism is a religion then most of the world follow thousands of religions at once. All those Christians, they’re not just Christians but they’re Not-Muslims, Not-Hindus, Not-Jews, Not-Buddhists, Not-Shinto and so on and so forth. Since the lack of belief in a God is a religion then their lack of belief in the version of God (or Gods, or things like transcendence, reincarnation, Lord Xenu, etc.) are also religions and they must count themselves not merely as Christians but as all these other UnReligions too.
They’re gonna need a “Religion” bigger box on census forms, methinks…