DCist: Popcorn & Candy: Gods and Legends

Chris Klimek

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:24:24 -0500

Good, tight little encomium to Mr. Newman there, Ian. Nice work.

IMGoph

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:58:49 -0500

is it just me, or does bill maher have a weak resemblance to joe biden? i think i'm crazy.

Fluxgirl

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:12:36 -0500

Maher for President.

ph7

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:52:22 -0500

Thanks for adding a great phrase to my collection of inappropriate metaphors!

monkeyrotica

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:02:18 -0500

Meh, I lost my faith in atheism years ago. And replacing Jebus's Dad with some Golden Calf made out of quantum physics, bailing wire, and blasting caps makes even less sense. I'll just stick with pouring Sterno through stale bread, smoking carpet, and beating my meat like it owes me money. I've gotten to the point now where I can hit little paper targets!

ph7

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:25:35 -0500

Well, "absolute certainty" is a high standard. Now, I am near absolutely certain that I was not born of a virgin birth, but since I was not there when the seed was implanted, I cannot be "absolutely" certain. Yet, I don't really think that believing I was not born of virgin birth is the "same trap" that those who do believe in the concept of virgin birth. Penn Gillete has a interesting take on this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557 Anyway, angels on the head of a pin -- I get Mahrer's point - know it all are insufferable (and I imagine Penn Gillete is probably insufferable)

timtheviking2

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:57:00 -0500

Well, the point is, a true atheist knows for certain that there is no God, a premise which is just as unprovable as the premise that there is a God. But I see your point. On some level, if you believe that you can never prove a negative, then we can never know for sure that thunder isn't just God farting after a trip to Ben's Chili Bowl. But we kinda do know, right? I agree that, all things being equal, atheism is the much more logical conclusion based on the empirical data that are available. But I think Maher's point is that, by claiming absolute and certain knowledge that you really don't have, you're falling into the same trap as a religious person.

ph7

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:26:33 -0500

FWIW, disbelief is far more rational. To not believe in something alleged, but for which no material proof exists, is rational. To believe in something alleged, but for which no material proof exists, is not rational. I don't see how you can fairly equate the two. Maybe Mahrer realizes that it does not make sense to marginalize an already marginal audience (as any atheist knows, it's hard to find company except in private moments when even the most apparently devout have confessed they believe it is all bullshit, too).