The thing is science in and of itself is that it is reducing reality to a series of symbols to make it more accessible to humans. There are actually very few "Laws" in Science and a lot of "Theories". The "proven fact/reality" of today is in scientific terms a "Theory" which can be disproven at any time. As a matter of fact the theories about the structure of an atom have changed at least 3 times in the last 150 years. There are chemicals like DDT that during the 1940s scientists tested and determined had no adverse effects on the environment and living organisms that were disproven in the 1980's. Einsteins concept that the speed of light is constant has also been disproven. On top of that for Science to be absolute you have one factor to remove from the whole thing to make it so and that is Subjectivism. The fact of the matter is that the human mind makes everything subjective to the experiences of the people having the experience this includes scientists performing the experiments that lead to our understanding of "Reality". In fact science itself has it built in it is called "Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle". Essentially what that means is that even the act of observing a reaction has an effect on that reaction. Unfortunately, for the reasons that I just mentioned there is alot of blind faith in science. The other thing is that the average human isn't performing any of these experiments. They are reading about the results in books and periodicals that say that this is what science says. And interpreting what these books and periodicals say to the best of their understanding. The person who wrote the book or article is also writing that book or article to the best of his understanding. So these arguments are based on an interpretation of an interpretation (kind of like the Bible). The average Athiest will spout off all of these books they have read that prove there is no God. The average Born Again Christian will spout off all of these books that they have read that says God does exist. The fact of the matter is there is no absolute proof on either side. Both sides are putting faith that the "Author" of the books they are reading is correct. The people who author books on both sides could also be completely out of their minds. Especially with the concept of God it is easy to get blinded by your own emotions and say stupid shit like "Religion is a Neurological Disorder" or "The only way you will truly be happy is if you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and personal savior". Stay Brown, Rev J
Ultimately I have to respect your well thought out position. I don't understand though why it bothers you that people would criticize religion. I also think you don't understand how the peer review process works in science. Science is not a cohesive dogmatic body, its a competition, with everyone trying to disprove everyone else. Its pretty ruthless. Go to the nearest university, don't bring up religion at all, and just ask a scientist about what they have to go through to get a paper published. Though I do think you are right about people having faith in science. A most un-scientific position, but may do suffer from it.
I have no opinion on this gent. I only really here about people like this on forums. I've heard of the name, though. I just have not been that interested to find out more. We don't tend to have people like that on our TV. Especially not on our news.
I like him, coming from the middle of the atlantic ocean, its nice to hear his opinion on things regarding north america which I agree with for the most part.
It's not the fact that he criticizes religion that bothers me it is the manner in which he does it. I criticize religion on a regular basis but I don't go so far as calling people "Idiots" for their religious beliefs or lack there of. Using phrases like "Religion is a Neurological Disorder" is the thing that I have a problem with. Essentially it is the whole evangelical approach be it Evangelical Christian or Evangelical Athiest. Criticizing people for being ignorant and closed minded one minute then making ignorant closed minded statements the next are what I have a problem with. As a matter of fact I can think of someone else who wanted the world to agree with him. Hitler. Stay Brown, Rev J
Last year I was watching his show as he was railing on about global warming. "The Planet is going to be destroyed and it's all the republicans fault!!!!" There was a young, pretty, conservative black girl on the panel who tried to disagree with everything he was saying. When she would not back down he basically called her illiterate and abruptly changed the subject. I think I liked him better when he had the ABC show. He wasn't always so angry back then. Also, 9-11 truthers are morons.
i dont like him. he gets a pay check for doing nothing but telling jokes he dont even write himself.. grow some balls America and kick his fucking ass.. This country isnt a joke, if we all got a pay checks for telling jokes 90% of hip forumers would be fucking millionaires.
Honestly I think John Stewart is much more progressive and even lets his guests talk even though he may not agree with them. While Maher likes to put Republicans on his show so that he can give off the illusion of being "Progressive" he is just another pseudo-intellectual hypocrite unironically using the same tactics as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage. One of the fundamental features of "Progressive" thought is tolerance. I saw an episode of his show last week with an Egyptian Journalist talking about the protests and what freedom for Egypt meant for her and what that freedom meant in the Big Picture. All Maher wanted to do was interrupt her and say it was about Islam. Funny the official press releases from the Egyptian Government were blaming "The Islamic Brotherhood" for stirring up shit. How progressive Bill Maher is for toeing the party line for a dictatorship that is torturing its own people. I also think that Maher is thoroughly gutless. Going back to his decisions on guests. When he puts on guests that disagree with him he uses the most inarticulate people with the opposing view point he can find to make him look better. If low and behold he does put on somebody who is articulate he generally won't let them speak. Although I will say that the Egyptian Journalist wouldn't put up with his shit but she is the exception not the rule. At least John Stewart will meet people with strongly opposing viewpoints at close range like going on the O'Reilly Factor or having O'Reilly on The Daily Show. But at the end of the day it is all about Entertainment. Pure and simple. Bill Maher doesn't have any Political Agenda. He doesn't want to save the Earth or really have any type of honest discussion. Bill Maher needs conservatives and Religion because they put food on his table. If the Republican party disbanded tomorrow, The environment cleaned up, and we all became good little Athiests then Maher would be out of work. That isn't progressive. Stay Brown, Rev J
Maher has had O'Riley on his show. And Maher is brighter and gets better guests than the right wing goofballs like O'Reilley, Michael Savage, Limbaugh, etc.. No comparison, Maher's show is better, more educated.
JMT didn't criticize Maher for calling people Idiots. I did. Once in a while Maher says something I agree with. Once in a while O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Savage also say things that I agree with. But that said a broken clock is right twice a day. Chris Rock once said that "Nobody who is worth a fuck is completely Conservative or completely Liberal. If they are truly honest they have areas where they are Liberal and areas where they are Conservative." There is alot of wisdom there. But to call Maher a "Progressive" is just wrong. When I think of the term "progressive" among the traits that I think of is tolerant. If you only tolerate views that match your own then you aren't really tolerant. Maher only seems to tolerate views that match his own. Also when I think of progressive I think of open dialog about the issues to find a solution and a common place to start from. When you try to start an open dialog then shout down the person that is on the other side it is no longer an open dialog. The shit that pours out of Mahers mouth is some of the most intolerant bullshit that I have ever heard. To rail against Muslims and say that the world would be a better place if everyone was athiest isn't progressive it is fascist. It's amazing that you choose to call someone that get's up on a regular basis and blames 2 groups of people for all of the problems on Earth "Progressive". The fact is that the original purpose of religion was to give people a set of ground rules to make the world we live in a better place and some incentive to do the right thing. The problem is that people will twist what that means as it suits them. The problem that has quickly arisen in Religion and is seeping it's way into politics is that there has been an over emphasis on the messenger and an under emphasis on the message. The truth is the truth weather it came from Jesus Christ or Anton Levay. On that same line of thought the truth is the truth if it comes from Bill O'Reilly or Bill Maher. To me Bill Maher is just an extremist who criticizes other extremists. That to me isn't "Progressive" it is Dangerous. Stay Brown, Rev J
