Thread: "The Mighty Maher Strikes Out."

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 73 of 73
  1. #71  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Janey View Post
    I'd like to add a complete non-sequitur here. :)

    The title of the film should be "Religiulous". A soft "g" requires an "i" after it. The way it is spelled now, it should be pronounced "re-lig-yoo-lus". Maher's an idiot.

    That "Maher's an idiot". is an universal 'given' and He's not even a convincing atheist !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Senior Member wineslob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I agree with author Sam Harris and his goal of promoting conversational intolerance of religious/dogmatic belief.

    To that end, I like the fact that movies like this are getting made and well-received in some circles, or at least not all together poorly received... but I don't trust Maher to actually put forth a good case for atheism/non-religiousness.. he just really isnt great at building a case and arguing for anything. He is a nutcase... quite the anti-thesis of rationality.. his beliefs are more religious than not.
    This guy?:

    His position is that "atheism" is not a worldview or a philosophy, but the "destruction of bad ideas." He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.
    What an asshole.

    At least he has some redeeming thought processes:

    Harris criticizes the general response in the West to terrorist atrocities such as 9/11, i.e. the response of pronouncing Islam a "religion of peace," while simultaneously declaring a "war on terror." Harris sees the first sentiment as demonstrably false, and the second as meaningless.[6]

    Instead, he says, we should plainly acknowledge that Western civilization is at war with Islam which, he maintains, preaches a doctrine of religious and political subjugation, not a message of peace. The Koran and the hadith, he notes, are packed with unambiguous incitements to kill infidels—acts which, according to the texts, are duly rewarded with an eternity of celestial delights (including the celebrated 72 virgins). It is specifically this metaphysics of martyrdom, or jihad, which, in taking the sting out of death, Harris sees as the source of greatest peril. That such notions might be merely the product of a more extreme form of Islam is an argument Harris considers to be especially untenable in the light of the worldwide violence that erupted in 2006 as a consequence of the publication of cartoons depicting (and satirizing) the Prophet Muhammad. He argues that the riots did not occur because the cartoon was "especially derogatory," but because "most Muslims believe that it is a sacrilege to depict Muhammad at all."[15] Harris maintains that the West is at war with "precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith."[6]
    There's no way you can trust her. Her missile is gigantic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by wineslob View Post
    This guy?:

    His position is that "atheism" is not a worldview or a philosophy, but the "destruction of bad ideas." He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.
    Yep, that guy. Sounds about right to me.

    Heres the quote w/ more context:

    "Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking."

    http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...h_atheism.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •