Religulous

[myboyblue]

I saw Bill Maher live a few years and he was much funnier than I expected......when not talking politics or religion.

 

 

Not many comedians can joke about such matters and not come across as mean or hateful or un-funny. Chris Rock can pull it off sometimes. Dennis Miller can pull it off. Leno can pull it off.

 

 

But Maher comes across like a smug, non-funny, arrogant piece of crap.

 

I'm beginning to think that you and I have a different sense of humour. I think Dennis Miller and Jay Leno are a couple of tool sheds while Bill Maher is absolutely hilarious. Arrogant? Yes, but funny.

[kwall]

yes, I believe our existence is predicated upon something

cool. that's some pretty good common ground. i wonder, though, do you have any evidence for this belief?

[Good Old Neon]

cool. that's some pretty good common ground. i wonder, though, do you have any evidence for this belief?

 

kwall

 

do you have any evidence for this belief?

 

Our existence.

 

Let me be clear, when I said our existence is predicated upon

[jakobnicholas]

I'm beginning to think that you and I have a different sense of humour.

 

 

 

I think you're correct.

 

 

Maher can be funny, but he's got a way-too-nasty streak.

 

 

I think there's a fine line between making fun of something/somebody and just being mean and hurtful. Maher crosses that line sometimes when talking religion or politics.

 

 

Yeah, I know it's uncool to like Leno, but he's an all-time master at stand-up.

[mountain bed]

I'm beginning to think that you and I have a different sense of humour. I think Dennis Miller and Jay Leno are a couple of tool sheds while Bill Maher is absolutely hilarious. Arrogant? Yes, but funny.

Yes.

[kwall]

Our existence.

 

Let me be clear, when I said our existence is predicated upon

[Good Old Neon]

is there evidence that this was merely by chance?

 

Do you have proof that it was not chance? Do you have proof at all to support the existence of a god? Can you present me with one piece, just a single piece of verifiable evidence that does not require a Herculean leap of faith?

 

The fact is, we have no reason to believe it was anything other than chance, and that of course is a logical response to a question that in all likelihood, has no answer. What is not reasonable, is to then jump to the conclusion that an invisible yet conscious hand has been guiding the process all along. This would not hold up in a court of law (

[kwall]

Do you have proof that it was not chance? Do you have proof at all to support the existence of a god? Can you present me with one piece, just a single piece of verifiable evidence that does not require a Herculean leap of faith?

no. just as you cannot prove that it was chance. and that's fine, i'm not attacking you, as your tone seems to suggest. i do maintain, however, that yours is a belief without evidence, as is mine.

 

The fact is, we have no reason to believe it was anything other than chance, and that of course is a logical response to a question that in all likelihood, has no answer.

does hitchens address at all how the random occurrence of a highly ordered system contradicts the second law of thermodynamics?

[Good Old Neon]

no. just as you cannot prove that it was chance. and that's fine, i'm not attacking you, as your tone seems to suggest. i do maintain, however, that yours is a belief without evidence, as is mine.

 

 

does hitchens address at all how the random occurrence of a highly ordered system contradicts the second law of thermodynamics?

 

To my recollection, no, he does not

[EL the Famous]

with 15 minutes and wikipedia...you're never wrong.

 

i like maher, most of the time...i'm at least interested to check this out. way more than the rest of of this thread, for sure.

[Good Old Neon]

no. just as you cannot prove that it was chance. and that's fine, i'm not attacking you, as your tone seems to suggest. i do maintain, however, that yours is a belief without evidence, as is mine.

 

And what, exactly, am I believing without evidence?

[Good Old Neon]

with 15 minutes and wikipedia...you're never wrong.

 

Oh, well in that case, here you go:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

[kwall]

To my recollection, no, he does not

[kwall]

And what, exactly, am I believing without evidence?

that the Pikia survived the Burgess decimation by chance.

[Good Old Neon]

i'm not resorting, misleading, or employing anything. just asking a question. next time i'll know better to just do the research myself (even though i'm stupid enough to believe in a creator, i know how to use google, too) lest i be subjected to your dickheadedness.

 

I will defend the truth vigorously

[kwall]

I will defend the truth vigorously

[Good Old Neon]

defending your position does not make you a dickhead; the manner in which you do it does.

 

[Guest Jules]

Didn't Bill Maher call the US cowards and the 9/11 terrorists "brave"? That's enough to land a place on my all time shit list.

[JUDE]

Dennis Miller > Bill Maher X infinity

[markosis]

[intolerant] behavior will not change anyone's mind. There needs to be understanding and we need to see what is common between us as humans, not take hardcore stances against one another.

 

Just wanted to quote/paraphrase myself from earlier.

[Good Old Neon]

Didn't Bill Maher call the US cowards and the 9/11 terrorists "brave"? That's enough to land a place on my all time shit list.

 

From wikipedia:

 

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002 after he made a controversial on-air remark on September 17, 2001,[35] in which he agreed with guest conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards. He then went on to say, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

 

Outside of the USA #1 crowd, he made a fair point. Bush and his supporters called Hussein a coward after being discovered hiding in a hole, ignoring, of course, that if this country suffered a similar attack, our leaders would also find themselves hiding in a hole

[bjorn_skurj]

Outside of the USA #1 crowd, he made a fair point. Bush and his supporters called Hussein a coward after being discovered hiding in a hole, ignoring, of course, that if this country suffered a similar attack, our leaders would also find themselves hiding in a hole

[Good Old Neon]

Just wanted to quote/paraphrase myself from earlier.

 

I admit it, I am intolerant of extraordinary claims for which no evidence exists

[kwall]

. . . that of course is your choice, but it doesn

[Atticus]

My wife and I often watch maher's. show. By and large I think it is a good show, though I can't remember a single time laughing during his monologue, contrasted with the many times I've cheered his closing statements.

 

I happen to believe in a god, because I have experienced moments in my life in which I truly felt a presence. Does that make me an idiot? Maybe so. But I don't thrust my beliefs on others and I find it somewhat offensive when maher includes me (and MANY of his own panelists) in a class of morons just because of my own life experiences.

 

I will definitely see this movie. I doubt if I will be offended because I already know what to expect.

 

A refusal to accept the existence of some type of god is fine with me, but there has been a well-made point in this thread that to dismiss anyone with faith as a moron is just as petulant and repugnant as a religious zealout doing the same to those without faith.

 

If we can't co-exist and exchange these points of view, I truly worry about where we are headed as a people.

 

Choose to be an aetheist--im fine with that. But don't tell me with disdain to discount my own life experiences. It's just tacky.

 

Science has been wrong many times. So have been those with faith. Who among us has the right to declare an absolute and attack those who disagree?