Bill Maher and Brian Levin Discuss Islam

[TitanTiger 20,479]

Well apparently. Did you not understand my question?

Did you not understand mine?

Which part of what I said indicated to you that I was dismissing science?

[homersapien 11,370]

Well apparently. Did you not understand my question?

Did you not understand mine?

Which part of what I said indicated to you that I was dismissing science?

Yes. You asked what you said that made me say you dismissed science.

And I responded that I didn't say you dismissed science. Which I didn't.

If you think I did, please quote me.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

This post (last sentence) seemed to imply it.

My apologies if that wasn't directed at me.

However...

Science is crazy. (Presumably "crazy" is the equivalent of worthless or invalid.)

Does that sound about right?

...this summation of my views isn't much better. How'd you come to the idea that I thought science was crazy?

[homersapien 11,370]

I think it's crazy to look around at this world and this universe and all its amazing complexity and think that way, way, way back when, somehow, someway there was just some energy of some sort that managed to somehow create all this "something" out of nothing. But not only that, but that it would develop over the years and somehow manage to create not just inanimate matter, but life. And not just life, but intelligent life with a will and desires and concepts such as love and beauty.

Crazy cuts both ways, bro.

So, let me see if I can confirm your position:

Science is crazy. (Presumably "crazy" is the equivalent of worthless or invalid.)

Does that sound about right?

You're really bad at this.

Well apparently. Did you not understand my question?

Let's revisit this exchange. It seems you became all snarky because I tried to clarify your point. If you had simply responded yea or nay and explained why, we might make a little progress in understanding each other. But noooooo, you've got to fire back a snark.

Anyway, at the risk of trying to reason with such a sensitive person, here is the basis of my interpretation. You said:

I think it's crazy to look around at this world and this universe and all its amazing complexity and think that way, way, way back when, somehow, someway there was just some energy of some sort that managed to somehow create all this "something" out of nothing. But not only that, but that it would develop over the years and somehow manage to create not just inanimate matter, but life. And not just life, but intelligent life with a will and desires and concepts such as love and beauty.

Crazy cuts both ways, bro.

The parts is red sounded to me like you are more or less (mostly less) describing the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe and /or the theory of evolution. (Except for the part in blue, which has nothing to do with any scientific claim or understanding)

You went on to characterize such an explanation as "Crazy".

So it seems to me, from your words, that my clarification on your position is at least plausable if not accurate.

So why would you denigrate it by suggesting I am "not much good at this"? Should I prepare myself for one of your sophistry-laden explanations?

[homersapien 11,370]

This post (last sentence) seemed to imply it.

My apologies if that wasn't directed at me.

Apology accepted. But it wasn't directed at anyone. It was meant as a simple truism.

However...

Science is crazy. (Presumably "crazy" is the equivalent of worthless or invalid.)

Does that sound about right?

...this summation of my views isn't much better. How'd you come to the idea that I thought science was crazy?

see my previous post (#54) for an explanation.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

Let's revisit this exchange. It seems you became all snarky because I tried to clarify your point. If you had simply responded yea or nay and explained why, we might make a little progress in understanding each other. But noooooo, you've got to fire back a snark.

Anyway, at the risk of trying to reason with such a sensitive person, here is the basis of my interpretation. You said:

I think it's crazy to look around at this world and this universe and all its amazing complexity and think that way, way, way back when, somehow, someway there was just some energy of some sort that managed to somehow create all this "something" out of nothing. But not only that, but that it would develop over the years and somehow manage to create not just inanimate matter, but life. And not just life, but intelligent life with a will and desires and concepts such as love and beauty.

Crazy cuts both ways, bro.

The parts is red sounded to me like you are more or less (mostly less) describing the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe and /or the theory of evolution. (Except for the part in blue, which has nothing to do with any scientific claim or understanding)

You went on to characterize such an explanation as "Crazy".

So it seems to me, from your words, that my clarification on your position is at least plausable if not accurate.

So why would you denigrate it by suggesting I am "not much good at this"? Should I prepare myself for one of your sophistry-laden explanations?

You seem to toss the word sophistry around a lot. It's almost as if you think it means "anything that can't be explained in a sentence or two. Basically you got that response from me because I thought you were being a smartass. So I retorted with snark.

That said, I also mentioned a couple of times that I did not think the only two possible explanations for how we got all this "something" out of nothing was either a totally naturalistic evolutionary explanation or a strictly literal Genesis/Creation explanation. I'm hardly anti-science. Plus I think you misunderstood. I felt Aufan was downing someone for believing in something they couldn't prove definitely. I merely used his own word ("crazy") to point out that total naturalism on matters of our origins requires a similar level of faith to that of the one he was taking shots at.

Bottom line, I don't think science is crazy.

[homersapien 11,370]

Let's revisit this exchange. It seems you became all snarky because I tried to clarify your point. If you had simply responded yea or nay and explained why, we might make a little progress in understanding each other. But noooooo, you've got to fire back a snark.

Anyway, at the risk of trying to reason with such a sensitive person, here is the basis of my interpretation. You said:

I think it's crazy to look around at this world and this universe and all its amazing complexity and think that way, way, way back when, somehow, someway there was just some energy of some sort that managed to somehow create all this "something" out of nothing. But not only that, but that it would develop over the years and somehow manage to create not just inanimate matter, but life. And not just life, but intelligent life with a will and desires and concepts such as love and beauty.

Crazy cuts both ways, bro.

The parts is red sounded to me like you are more or less (mostly less) describing the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe and /or the theory of evolution. (Except for the part in blue, which has nothing to do with any scientific claim or understanding)

You went on to characterize such an explanation as "Crazy".

So it seems to me, from your words, that my clarification on your position is at least plausable if not accurate.

So why would you denigrate it by suggesting I am "not much good at this"? Should I prepare myself for one of your sophistry-laden explanations?

You seem to toss the word sophistry around a lot. It's almost as if you think it means "anything that can't be explained in a sentence or two. That's because so many of your arguments reek of it. I suppose I could use "obfuscation" if you like that better.

Basically you got that response from me because I thought you were being a smartass. So I retorted with snark.

Please assume my questions are sincere unless they are clearly and obviously rhetorical. That wasn't the case here.

That said, I also mentioned a couple of times that I did not think the only two possible explanations for how we got all this "something" out of nothing was either a totally naturalistic evolutionary explanation or a strictly literal Genesis/Creation explanation.

That's very progressive of you.

I'm hardly anti-science. Plus I think you misunderstood. I felt Aufan was downing someone for believing in something they couldn't prove definitely. I merely used his own word ("crazy") to point out that total naturalism on matters of our origins requires a similar level of faith to that of the one he was taking shots at.

Bottom line, I don't think science is crazy.

Good to hear. I am encouraged by your open mindedness.

I agree that AUfan sort of "exposed" himself with his characterization, but here's a question:

Why is it so offensive to describe talking to God and expecting it to directly affect people as crazy, but if someone claims God is talking to them, not so much?

[Aufan59 62]

You: All religious people are crazy, it is just that some are more crazy than others.

Weegle: Based on what?

You: The overwhelming evidence...

Weegle: Which is?

You: Talking to yourself and pretending this helps other people...i.e. praying.

How exactly did I misinterpret that?

Congrats on finally quoting me. In your previous minced quotes, you left out "and pretending that this helps others". Talking to yourself is not crazy. Pretending that talking to yourself will benefit a stranger is crazy.

You believe in a completely naturalistic explanation for our origins. To do so requires a certain leap of faith whether you like those semantics or not. Call it what you will.

I have no faith in any explanation for our origins. Please explain to me how a lack of faith requires a leap of faith?

[TitanTiger 20,479]

Congrats on finally quoting me. In your previous minced quotes, you left out "and pretending that this helps others". Talking to yourself is not crazy. Pretending that talking to yourself will benefit a stranger is crazy.

You later said "I never said someone was silly for praying." But in your quote above, you flatly said what praying was to you: "Talking to yourself and pretending this helps other people."

I have no faith in any explanation for our origins. Please explain to me how a lack of faith requires a leap of faith?

You have faith that it's completely naturalistic (no supernatural beings involved). That requires a leap of faith because you don't and can't know how nothing could become something or alternately explain how there just always 'was' something that had no beginning. But you still believe that. If that's not faith what it is?

[TitanTiger 20,479]

I agree that AUfan sort of "exposed" himself with his characterization, but here's a question:

Why is it so offensive to describe talking to God and expecting it to directly affect people as crazy, but if someone claims God is talking to them, not so much?

I didn't say it was offensive. I simply pointed out that it's inconsistent given the faith requirements it takes to believe in a completely naturalistic creation of the universe.

[Weegle777 78]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

[Weegle777 78]

Good try TT, but these guys are not going to admit the flaws in their belief system. If nova or 59 thinks his wife is a descendant of an ape, then so be it.

Apes and humans both descended from common ancestors so maybe you ought to study up a little before you start attacking evolution.

I take it you don't have any sort of science degree.

This has never been proven to be scientific fact.

[homersapien 11,370]

I've noticed that Mr. Bill become a bit more "centered" in the last couple of months. This isn't the first time he has questioned the far left of late.

I disagree that Maher is particularly biased. I think he calls 'em like he sees 'em. He doesn't push a political agenda unless you consider biting satire and comedic commentary an agenda. I think he could care less who's on the receiving end if the issue is a good one to make fun of.

But for the record, I agree completely with Maher in this segment. He was pointing out some obvious truths and Levin was being far too apologetic for Islam.

But I understand Levin's resistance to turning the problem into a religious war, which won't help. But Maher's response was perfect IMO.

[homersapien 11,370]

I agree that AUfan sort of "exposed" himself with his characterization, but here's a question:

Why is it so offensive to describe talking to God and expecting it to directly affect people as crazy, but if someone claims God is talking to them, not so much?

I didn't say it was offensive. I simply pointed out that it's inconsistent given the faith requirements it takes to believe in a completely naturalistic creation of the universe.

Are you referring to the sort of faith that involves a sincere belief in something you don't understand, or the sort of generalized faith that one might have in mathematics or the scientific method, or in the ability of your car to start in the morning?

If it's the latter, then I can agree with your premise. Since none of us can be fully expert in a given field, much less all of science, it does take a certain amount of faith in the scientific method as well as faith that scientists are generally honest in their work.

(The nice thing about science though is it requires independent verification before it is truly accepted as fact, so it's virtually impossible to maintain a hoax or even just poor work, indefinitely.)

But holding to "naturalistic" theories of creation do not require believing in something that has not yet been explained by, or revealed to, science. There is a big difference between faith in science and faith in a supernatural cause.

[telling tiger 156]

Maher is a talk show host and comedian. He often discusses topical subjects in the same way that Dennis Miller, Colbert and Jon Stewart do. He does interview some people who are more mainstream news newsmakers than say, Carrot top, but he isn't very likely to be on any of the Sunday morning press shows , being questioned about domestic or foreign policy. Some people like the blue collar comedy tour and some people would not buy a ticket to it if that was the only thing ever available again. Neither one do anything except entertain the people who look at things from different angles of the viewpoints. Neither one does anything except reflect society back to it and its' various opinions.

[homersapien 11,370]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad.

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

But holding to "naturalistic" theories of creation do not require believing in something that has not yet been explained by, or revealed to, science. There is a big difference between faith in science and faith in a supernatural cause.

Of course you do. In place of a supernatural first cause, you have to posit that either "something" has eternally existed that finally exploded or changed in some way to set in motion the process of creating everything we know or you have to believe that at one point there literally was complete "nothingness" (no matter, no energy, nothing) and spontaneously something "poofed" into being all on its own. Neither of those things have been proven nor really can they. You just have to accept that it happened somehow, completely apart from any supernatural cause.

I can go along with the Big Bang theory. I can even go along with evolution as the process by which living things and the species came to be here on earth. But when you trace it all back to the beginning...that first instant that there was something instead of nothing, we both are relying on faith. A belief or acceptance of something that cannot be proven or duplicated.

[homersapien 11,370]

Good try TT, but these guys are not going to admit the flaws in their belief system. If nova or 59 thinks his wife is a descendant of an ape, then so be it.

Apes and humans both descended from common ancestors so maybe you ought to study up a little before you start attacking evolution.

I take it you don't have any sort of science degree.

This has never been proven to be scientific fact.

And do me a favor. Please don't discuss this subject with anyone that knows, or might discover, you are an Auburn graduate.

[autigeremt 6,606]

Good try TT, but these guys are not going to admit the flaws in their belief system. If nova or 59 thinks his wife is a descendant of an ape, then so be it.

Apes and humans both descended from common ancestors so maybe you ought to study up a little before you start attacking evolution.

I take it you don't have any sort of science degree.

This has never been proven to be scientific fact.

And do me a favor. Please don't discuss this subject with anyone that knows, or might discover, you are an Auburn graduate.

Really? Everyone has their own belief and they are entitled to it. An argument can be made for a lot of "scientific" discoveries out there and many times the science community comes back and changes what was thought to be fact after more evaluation. To question someone's alumni status over an issue of personal belief is very telling of your own intentions.

[homersapien 11,370]

But holding to "naturalistic" theories of creation do not require believing in something that has not yet been explained by, or revealed to, science. There is a big difference between faith in science and faith in a supernatural cause.

Of course you do. In place of a supernatural first cause, you have to posit that either "something" has eternally existed that finally exploded or changed in some way to set in motion the process of creating everything we know or you have to believe that at one point there literally was complete "nothingness" (no matter, no energy, nothing) and spontaneously something "poofed" into being all on its own. Neither of those things have been proven nor really can they. You just have to accept that it happened somehow, completely apart from any supernatural cause.

Nonsense. I don't have posit anything. I can accept and believe what science has told us and perhaps speculate on what science may discover in the future but I am not compelled to fill in the missing pieces with a faith-based assumption (or more accurately "wish").

Apparently this is one of the critical differences between me and the religious. I don't need to fill in uncertainty or ignorance with a working hypothesis with no basis other than a wishful one.

Maybe there is a God. Maybe he/she/it simply said it and bang!, the universe happened. But I don't feel compelled to believe in such a proposition in the lack of evidence.

And simply accepting that "something" happened is not the same as a manifestation of religious faith.

Presumably (unless you want to delve into philosophy and physics far beyond my capabilities to understand), the belief that "something happened" is no more than a logically self-evident conclusion. But such a conclusion is still limited by the unknown relevance of this logic to reality. (After all, look how scientific advancement rocked logical assumptions in quantum mechanics).

I am sure that there are scientists (who inherited the "God gene") who do believe in a creator. But they would be the first to tell you that such a belief is not required to believe in a "naturalistic" creation theory.

I can go along with the Big Bang theory. I can even go along with evolution as the process by which living things and the species came to be here on earth. But when you trace it all back to the beginning...that first instant that there was something instead of nothing, we both are relying on faith. A belief or acceptance of something that cannot be proven or duplicated.

Well, your faith presumably compels you to believe in a supernatural creator.

My only "faith" is in the scientific method and I don't believe in anything that hasn't been revealed to science. I don't believe in supernatural explanations because there is no evidence for it and I don't need to believe it. I could be wrong. And as soon as God reveals himself, I will start to believe in it.

So I don't believe an anything that can only be taken on faith, including the assumption that "something had to exist instead of nothing". I don't know. Science doesn't know. I believe that if it can be known, science will reveal it. But it's possible it can't be known. Either way I am not compelled to believe anything because I have to (or want to).

To borrow one of your phrases: is this really that hard to understand?

Now if you insist on equating our "faiths", I suppose that's your prerogative. But what's your point?

[homersapien 11,370]

Good try TT, but these guys are not going to admit the flaws in their belief system. If nova or 59 thinks his wife is a descendant of an ape, then so be it.

Apes and humans both descended from common ancestors so maybe you ought to study up a little before you start attacking evolution.

I take it you don't have any sort of science degree.

This has never been proven to be scientific fact.

And do me a favor. Please don't discuss this subject with anyone that knows, or might discover, you are an Auburn graduate.

Really? Everyone has their own belief and they are entitled to it. An argument can be made for a lot of "scientific" discoveries out there and many times the science community comes back and changes what was thought to be fact after more evaluation. To question someone's alumni status over an issue of personal belief is very telling of your own intentions.

First, I am not questioning his alumni status.

Secondly at least a modicum of scientific understanding should be necessary for anyone graduating from any accredited university, much less Auburn. To have someone with an Auburn degree who is so woefully under-educated in science and freely expresses it, devalues Auburn as an educational institution, which means it devalues my - and your - degree.

And if you are seriously equating evolution with various miss-directions or false theories that science ultimately weeded out, you don't have the proper prospective on the scientific stature of evolution yourself.

Bottom line, you may be comfortable with AU grads publicly proclaiming their disbelief in science but I am not and I don't mind saying so.

[Weegle777 78]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

[Weegle777 78]

Good try TT, but these guys are not going to admit the flaws in their belief system. If nova or 59 thinks his wife is a descendant of an ape, then so be it.

Apes and humans both descended from common ancestors so maybe you ought to study up a little before you start attacking evolution.

I take it you don't have any sort of science degree.

This has never been proven to be scientific fact.

And do me a favor. Please don't discuss this subject with anyone that knows, or might discover, you are an Auburn graduate. :no:/>

Are you kidding me? Did you just make such an arrogant, idiotic, moronic, holier-than-thou, statement? You need to reevaluate the high pedestal that you think that you are residing on my friend. Because it's not as high as you think it is.

[homersapien 11,370]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as to the extent that the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Glad you love science. That puts you in an excellent position to understand it.

[Weegle777 78]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.