Bill Maher: Occupy Protesters Are "Douchebags" Who Need To "Get A Job" x/post r/politics. The inequality here hasn't changed here Bill. Sorry if Occupy has become less entertaining for you now

Stthads · 2012-02-06T19:15:28.467803+00:00

I think Maher has a point - the occupy movement has to step it up. The first wave didn't accomplish much, and now it just seems to be petering out and what you have are people who, while good intentioned are also losing ground and attracting opportunists. This is probably the same thing that happened to the tea party movement. It was likely a legitimate activist group until it was taken over and exploited by special interests.

OWS is a lot like "the war on terror". It's an abstraction that isn't easily qualified or quantified. So it's hard to figure out how you "win". The OWS should have fixated on a very specific agenda and made it clear at every turn what that agenda was and how to qualify success. Otherwise, there's no exit strategy and no way to keep score. And thus, no way to achieve success.

steadybuffalo · 2012-02-06T19:01:39.359324+00:00

Comparing her to people like Elton John and Bob Dylan is pretty presumptuous. If her career lasts 3 more years, much less 30, then we can talk.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:52:09.967688+00:00

Where am I clinging to faddish blithe statements?

Atheism is not a fad. It's the starting position someone has before they have their head filled with superstitious mumbo jumbo.

You aren't even curious to wonder if you appear ideological and that you accept blithely repeated statements without question?

Again, what "blithely repeated statements" am I accepting without question? I question everything.

This is the problem I have with people like you, and why I end up dismissing and mocking you. Because you're not actually having a conversation with me. You've fabricated some sort of "strawman atheist" that holds whatever qualities you've made up in your head that you feel you can criticize, that do not resemble myself or other people here.

In a much more serious note, because I have concrete experience with cults, aren't you at all concerned that you cast yourself in such a glowing superior light that you cannot even consider "outsiders" speaking about your words

You have yet to provide any actual details of how myself or anybody else is saying or doing anything inaccurate or how we're being closed-minded about anything. Dismissing something that is presented without evidence is not being closed-minded. It's being efficient. So far, all you've done is argue with me over semantics and pretend that I am somebody I'm not in order to strawman me.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:38:18.377246+00:00

We both know your "faith" is not affected by the fact that there's no direct evidence that the anti-god approach is better at anything at all...

There absolutely is direct evidence that secularism and propserity and less human suffering have a direct correlation. See: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

In almost every instance, religion flourishes in areas where more humans are suffering, and diminishes in areas where humans are happier, more successful, healthier and have greater life expectancy. Across the board, without hardly any exception this phenomena is observable and quantifiable.

Non-religious countries are by far, more peaceful and more prosperous, again, across-the-board. The more religious a country is, the more likely it has conflict and human rights issues. Again, this is across-the-board. Any citation in conflict with that idea is a rare exception.

Few societies even found any success using the scientific method... because they didn't believe progress was possible.

Now you're talking gibberish.

It is also not any better at determining what your moral tasks are in life. At least ... not ever happening without the screamingly huge potent habit of modern Western Liberal Judeo-Christian Lawful civilization in your bloodstream and mind.

Morality has nothing to do with religion. This is another fallacy. People in modern society behave decently because we have laws in place to punish them - in the material world. No god(s) needed. Our existing laws (in most non-theocratic nations) are based on obvious moral standards that are not derived from any supernatural source. Not killing a fellow human has myriad of advantages in the material world. Again, no god(s) required.

As for Atheism... its just what your homies value right now... because your religion has no reason to be curious about itself!

Atheism is not a religion, but I see facts that contradict your claims don't seem to discourage you from repeatedly making the same erroneous claims. And this demonstrates the difference between us and our values. A pragmatic person will adapt based on reality, an ideological person such as yourself, will continue to cling to obsolete concepts and attack anyone who seeks to bring them down to earth. And when that fails you have to mischaracterize myself and other atheists in order to make your weak position appear stronger, so you call us everything from "hateful" to "un curious." In the end, what's real is real and what is phony is still phony, and each new day you have to start over again, desperately looking for ways to keep your fragile house of cards standing. It must be exhausting. That's one thing I'm glad I do not have to do. In reality, I have no hatred for you whatsoever. Only pity.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:25:08.349222+00:00

You, by happenstance, appear to have gotten to the same general conclusion as the Judeo-Christian tradition. No wonder?

Not at all. No god(s) are required to fulfill the Tragedy of the Commons. In fact the Judeo-Christian ideology celebrates the irresponsible and shortsighted attributes of mankind by suggesting that it's ok to shit on other people and the world's resources because super-jeezus will show up and rescue all the chosen people.

Go hypothesize that Christians will cause the downfall of society then walk by your very Judeo-Christian law history books, your church-supported universities, hospitals, schools... etc. After 1850 it was mostly Capitalism, assuredly, but getting there was optional.

Can you name one thing christianity has done for mankind that secular society has not done better? One thing. I challenge you.

Or you can wallow in your hate and imagine the world will collapse unless people like you destroy your enemies. I wonder how many other religions follow that? Jesus didn't.

There you go projecting again.

Let's establish something right here: I don't hate. You are the one who hates. I have no ill-will towards christians, nor do I want to "destroy" religious people or religion. All I want to do is educate people so they can make informed choices based on rational, logical evidence, as opposed to fear, shame and coercion, which are the weapons of choice you wield.

You are the one who has to villify the non-believer. You have to make me the "enemy" because you are the one who has trouble peacefully co-existing with others who don't share your delusion. I can peacefully co-exist with christians as long as they acknowledge the same realities we both share, that can be proven. You are the person who has trouble with reality, which is why you have to create this strawman, of the "hateful atheist" who wants to "destroy christians" in order for you to justify your own hatred and intolerance.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:20:15.877108+00:00

More ad hominems.

I just putting you on notice. You will get called out in this subreddit for your evasive debate style.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:17:46.011181+00:00

Plenty of people who believe in God aren't fundamental enough to presume they know whether or not he exists.

I would disagree with you. People don't waste their time pandering to someone or something they aren't sure is real. Especially when this something is supposedly the reason for their existence. They most certainly do believe god is real. The "agnostic theist" is more an exception than the rule. In fact, I've never met one in my life. It's more of a conceptual thing than anything else.

More often though, the term "agnostic" is usually used to describe someone who doesn't even want to enter the conversation about belief.

If they don't want to enter the conversation, they don't reveal what they believe in the first place. People who use the term agnostic usually do so because it has less social stigma than "atheist."

mercenary-games · 2012-02-06T03:36:08.106369+00:00

PHP is "tech", not a language.

It's a tool, just like C is a tool.

Any tool or tech can be misused. But PHP has a definitive value, unlike some "languages."

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T02:27:27.319444+00:00

We both know your "faith" is not affected by the fact that there's no direct evidence that your god is real.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T02:19:07.034376+00:00

Didn't say that wasn't the case, but if someone comes to conclusions and forms opinions based solely on what a comedian has/hasn't said, there's a problem.

Nobody is doing that. For anything to be funny, there has to be truth in it, which means people are associating their personal knowledge and experience, with the comedy.

Fox News has also been a powerful, effective medium to communicate messages, "educate", and to affect political and social change. That doesn't mean their message is good or correct

This is a false equivalence.

Bill Maher hosts and entertains all manner of ideological opinions. Fox news is relatively homogenous. Plus, Bill Maher is one guy with a one hour show that runs on a pay cable network once a week. Fox news is an entire network with multiple channels and thousands of hours of programming.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T02:17:37.832562+00:00

You do not know the definition of atheist. You are confusing outspoken, activist people who can come in any flavor, from theist, to atheist to insurance salesmen.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-05T19:14:36.175644-07:00

Evolution is that which prefers the tragedy of the commons.

Which means, that by its nature, humanity will eventually kill itself off.

Unless we become responsible and considerate of our resources, but that will never happen as long as people like you subscribe to irrational death cults that promise unquantifiable rewards in the afterlife and have any influence in society.

I understand you think some great reward awaits, but I bet you're also fond of employing Pascal's wager. Well in this case, I would say to you, What if you're wrong? What if this is all there is? And your boneheaded superstitious malarkey caused the entire human race to perish? Won't you be proud? No. You'll just be dead, along with every semblance your genes as well.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T02:09:40.807326+00:00

This is the same tired argument most theists pull out when they're backed into a corner: You don't understand.

Yes, yes, we understand. We just disagree. You do not have truth, nor logic, nor "etymology" on your side, and like most theists, you seek to redefine what "truth", "faith", "logic", "atheism" and other terms mean in order to move the goalposts and give your ever-fleeting air of legitimacy another nanosecond of consideration. Good luck with that. You're not fooling anybody.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T02:05:08.169471+00:00

My claim is that a subreddit exists to discuss an investigate new ideas and interesting topics

This subreddit exists to promote science over superstition. As long as superstition and irrational and unscientific ideas continue to freely breathe in the mainstream, we will do our best to expose them to the light of reason.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T01:14:32.421338+00:00

You have chosen to redefine common constructs (such as "faith") to fit your preconceived notion.

Unfortunately your arbitrarily definition is yours and yours only. And the rest of us do not subscribe to it. So when you rely on your fabricated "facts", don't act so surprised when the rest of us don't agree.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:57:37.091456+00:00

You sir, have chugged the kool-aid. That's your choice. And that you have to pseudo-authoritatively claim those who disagree are wrong, does not make them wrong nor you right.

I also didn't miss your thinly-veiled Godwin, another last bastion of the desperate.

When you're ready for a no-holes-barred discussion you let us know. I'll give you your own thread in /r/Freethought where you can enter the octagon of truth.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:49:41.255707+00:00

The evidence is concrete.

What that study shows has absolutely no bearing on religion or the legitimacy or value of superstitious constructs.

It is little more than a restating of the classic Tragedy of the Commons.

Religion is not the only construct that promotes copious procreation. Religion also promotes aggression and emotional superiority and prejudice, so in a survival-of-the-fittest-type scenario, a philosophy that promotes oppression and intolerance against those who would allow themselves to be conquered can be proven to be genetically beneficial.

However, most religion does not promote science and equality and many other constructs which have helped save humanity from ruin on many other occasions. Being warlike and intolerant might work in some scenarios, but not all, and always, only up to a certain point. And there's nothing about religion that is exclusive to this theory. The same could be said about nationalism or ethnic pride.

Nowhere in the bible does it say, "Wash your hands before eating or preparing food." That's a scientific construct that religion never seemed to figure out, that once was understood, saved millions of lives.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:41:17.939865+00:00

A recent neo-atheist myth.

A naked assertion

Back it up with facts.

This is common knowledge. Look up the definition.

If my beer bottle is "atheist" then why isn't my beer bottle also "agnostic" and "agyphyric" (without qualities of a bridge). Its an insipid abuse of etymology.

Your beer bottle is not a living thing. It does not "think" or have "beliefs" or feelings. You are the one abusing etymology.

Actually there's more than enough evolutionary theory to show religious beliefs are innately supported

LOL... says the guy who demands "facts" and then doesn't back up his own goofy-ass claims.

You can produce no such "evidence." At best you can demonstrate that fearful behavior and unconditional adherence to dictates of authoritarian caregivers is a genetic trait, which people like Richard Dawkins have very successfully and rationally explained as a non-supernaturally-derived evolutionarily-beneficial trait.

Again... science does not back it up. Its a cultic myth that is demanded to believe by advocates/members with an agenda for its acceptance.

Bullshit. I can tell by the double standard you employ that you're just a troll.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:33:52.883462+00:00

those who would make born-again christians feel ashamed

You mean christians and christian theology... which by its nature and doctrine, promotes shame and self-loathing.

Believe whatever the fuck you want to believe if it makes you happy and you're not hurting anyone. Don't push your beliefs on others and we'll all get along just fine.

Add to that:

Don't seek tax exemption so that non-believers end up subsidizing your religion

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:30:46.315524+00:00

never agreed with this position that because you're an atheist trying to inform the public about the fallacies of religion that somehow you are a religious atheist.

Atheism is atheism.

Theism is theism.

Activism is activism.

Most people have some things they're passionate about. For some, it may be certain sociological philosophies that they feel are worth promoting (or criticizing). None of these constructs are synonymous nor mutually exclusive.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:28:28.385084+00:00

I don't know of any situation where Maher didn't identify as an atheist. Plus agnosticism IMO is a subset of atheism in all practical scenarios.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:14:02.597178+00:00

I think it's a very powerful message he relays in mocking religion. Obviously you can't rationally debate many of those people: they believe what they believe and it's more an emotional attachment than a logical one, so people like Maher who belittle such religious dogma can be very effective in getting through to both theists and non-theists.

Matt Dillahunty (from The Atheist Experience) has a powerful argument he uses to drive home this point: How many of us stopped believing in Santa Claus once we rationally, logically recognized he wasn't real, verses some of us who may have rejected the notion once our fellow classmates made fun of the fact that we still believed? There are many who will lose such faith after being made fun of.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:10:08.119026+00:00

Comedy has always been a powerful and effective way to communicate and educate, and affect political and social change.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:09:13.620845+00:00

He's one of the worst representatives for non-belief because he has no background in a scientific field

Not believing in god is not a scientific proposition. Why should anyone outspoken about reality and logic have to have a degree in science in order to be taken seriously?

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T00:08:07.049512+00:00

I agree. Not to mention she wouldn't shut up, and insisted on talking over everybody else and showed no respect to Maher. I suspect he won't be asking her back on the show again.

Secret Santa 2011	Four-Year Club
Verified Email

Pilebsa

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login