HBO late night comedian Bill Maher has made no secret of the fact that he is a militant Atheist, and it is not uncommon at all for him to make derisive comments about Christians and Christianity. He did not disappoint, recently, when on his show he dismissively said, “The events of January 6 were a faith-based initiative and Trumpism is a Christian nationalistic movement that believes Trump was literally sent from heaven to save them.” He continued, “We need to stop pretending there’s no way we will ever understand why the Trump mob believes in him. It’s because they’re religious. They’ve already made space in their heads for [expletive] that does not make sense.”
As a person who is very interested in observing how worldview beliefs are expressed in the world, I find it personally fascinating to see Maher’s beliefs so openly on display. Most people are not aware of their own worldview beliefs, and, obviously, Maher is not an exception to this rule. Unless a person has taken the time and opportunity to study worldview concepts and become consciously aware of their own worldview beliefs, those beliefs are totally unconscious. People simply cannot imagine that other people actually believe what they, themselves, consider to be fantasy.
In Maher’s case, he honestly believes that people who are “religious” believe nonsense. Did you notice the last sentence of his tirade above?: “They’ve already made space in their heads for [expletive] that does not make sense.”
In truth, Maher has no objective reason for making a statement like that. The fact that Christian beliefs don’t make sense to him does not mean that they are not true, nor that they actually do not make sense. What it does mean is that there are beliefs that he does not understand, and what he does not understand he considers to be nonsense. How’s that for open-mindedness?
What is really at play here is that Bill Maher is a religious zealot for his atheistic faith. Now if someone were to say that to him directly, he would certainly rebel at the thought. Most Atheists do. They tend to honestly believe that their beliefs are not religious at all, but are based on science. But religious zealotry tends to blind people that way. All they know is their own faith, and are so insecure that they cannot look at people of other faiths with respect. Rather, they seek to destroy them.
Continue reading here.
Atheism is not a “faith”. If this is what you really think, you have a lot to learn and you shouldn’t talk about things you are ignorant of. Faith is believing in things without evidence. Atheism is rejecting god claims because there is no real evidence and every philosophical argument for any deity that I have seen (and I have looked a lot and seen a lot) has failed.
Atheism is not based on faith. If you can’t absorb that very basic fact, you really have no business discussing the issue.
You simply don’t understand the nature of your own arguments. There absolutely is evidence for the existence of God. The fact that you are not willing to accept the evidence that exists doesn’t mean there is none, only that you don’t accept it. By the same token, while you might try to couch your beliefs as “non-belief,” that is a rather shallow way of trying to deal with it. The fact is, while you may not believe in God, you do believe in something – and that “something” must be believed by faith. There is no other choice. So, what empirical proof (since that is the kind you seem to be demanding) do you have for your beliefs?
Additionally, your definition of faith is also quite lacking. It may involve believing things without empirical evidence, but that is not the only kind of evidence that exists. You can’t empirically validate your own beliefs (which means you believe them by faith – making them religious beliefs).
There is evidence? Funny. I have been begging theists to provide some for decades and none have done so. Maybe you can. Give it a try. Maybe you can start by defining what you mean by “evidence”. I mean observable, testable, repeatable support for a claim.
You are making the error of thinking that everyone must think as you do. You believe based on faith without reason or evidence so you assume everyone must. That is not true.
What empirical evidence do I have for rejecting gods based on never having seen evidence for them? The fact that I have never seen any evidence for them. See how simple? No faith at all.
My definition of faith is exactly accurate and is what I mean when I use the word. What do you mean when you say it?
You seem to be having a hard time understanding that reason and evidence is worldview dependent. What any individual considers reasonable, valid evidence is defined by the worldview beliefs they hold. It appears that you are demanding empirical evidence as the only possible kind that can be used to verify the existence of God. If, indeed, the beliefs of a naturalistic worldview are true, then you would be right in demanding that kind of evidence. However, if God actually does exist as He has revealed Himself in the Bible, then there is an aspect of reality that exists and can be known that extends beyond empirical verification.
So, if you are going to demand that I give evidence based on your naturalistic worldview, then before I am willing to accept your premise, I demand that you prove, using your own empirical approach, that Naturalism is true. I recognize that you probably don’t know how to do that, so I will spell it out for you. You can do it by answering the following four questions giving empirical proof (observable, testable, and repeatable).
1. What is the origin of the material that makes up the natural universe?
2. What is the origin of life?
3. What accounts for the variety of life forms that exist in the world (remember, observable, testable, and repeatable)?
4. What is the origin of consciousness?
Very interested in your empirical answers to all of these questions.
Please define what you mean by evidence. Please provide it. This is the ultimate failure of apologists like you. You keep going on about how there is evidence other then empirical but you never say exactly what that means.
This part will be easy. Answers.
1. I don’t know and neither do you. I am honest in answering that but you make a claim to knowledge you do not have.
2. I don’t know and neither do you. I am honest in answering that but you make a claim to knowledge you do not have.
3. Evolution, which is completely observable, testable, and repeatable. If you disagree, you do not understand the science.
4. I don’t know and neither do you. I am honest in answering that but you make a claim to knowledge you do not have.
Why go apologists persist in the fallacy that not knowing a thing makes it reasonable to attribute it to a god?
Evidence is information that demonstrates the validity of a particular assertion. What you still don’t seem to understand is that, as I said before, what people will accept as valid evidence is worldview dependent. I can give you evidence that I consider valid, but if you don’t accept the presuppositions of my worldview beliefs, you will simply dismiss my evidence as not valid – which is exactly what you have done. The only problem is, you have made your determination as to what is valid evidence based on YOUR worldview beliefs without giving any evidence that your beliefs are true. You have seemingly assumed that the only valid evidence is that which can be empirically verified, and I have disputed your assumption. That is why I asked you the four questions. You have answered three of them by saying you don’t know. By saying that, you have told me that the assumptions you have based your definition upon does not correspond to the requirements of your naturalistic worldview beliefs. In order for your criticism of me to have any validity at all, you must be able to answer them based on empirical data – which you cannot do. You are assuming things that you do not know to be true (which means you believe them by faith, not by “evidence” (using your seeming assumptions about the definition of evidence). You have made a religious assertion, not a scientific one.
BTW, micro-evolution (natural selection) is completely observable, testable, and repeatable. Macro-evolution is a conclusion based on naturalistic philosophy and has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is a religious belief.
Until you come to understand what I have just told you, you will never be able to make an intelligent argument. I suggest you work on getting up to speed.
Y0u are completely ignorant of evolution. The facts are absolute. The evidence is there, observable testable and repeatable. Your denial of them is an indication of your ignorance. In this there is no room for debate. You are simply and provable wrong. If you want to claim otherwise, start with issue one of The Journal of Evolutionary Biology and refute every single peer reviewed article ever published. Then we will take your nonsense seriously.
What you fail to understand is that what you call evidence is just your opinion, unsupported and with no connection to reality. What I call evidence is universally applicable and reliable.
You fail, both in your understanding and in your arrogant ignorance. I do find it amusing that the best you even attempt to do (and fail at) was to lower my position down to the same level as yours. You twice said I was making a religious claim. Maybe that’s because on some level, you recognize how faulty and ridiculous religious claims are.
You are simply in error. Show me the science that proves macro-evolution to be true. Do that and you win the argument. You can’t though, because it doesn’t exist. That is why the Theory of Evolution is still called a theory. There is plenty of speculation about “how it must have happened” by those who believe it to be true, but there is no science to prove it. The fact that a lot of people write articles that are affirmed by people who believe the same thing does not make them true. The fact is, when refuting the conclusions of the various articles you point to, I would not be refuting empirical science, I would be dismissing conclusions based on naturalistic philosophy. You simply don’t seem to know how to make that kind of distinction. You are the one who is failing in your understanding and arrogant ignorance.
I guess you still don’t realize that a claim that is made based on faith presuppositions is a religious claim (which is exactly the basis for belief in macro-evolution). You can mock me if you like, but your mocking is meaningless unless you can show me the science. I’ll wait.
Unequivocal evidence for evolution. Peer reviewed. Tons of it. Anything else on this?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14209101
Remember, just because you don’t understand the evidence doesn’t mean it is invalid.
I also enjoy the way you use the word “theory”. A theory in science is a well evidenced explanation for a set of facts. It is the highest standard possible. The theory if Gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution are examples of this.
Peer review and the scientific method are absolutely the best path to knowledge that humanity has come up with. To deny it is ridiculous.
You think you could refute the science based on “naturalistic philosophy” but what you seem completely unable to understand is that your position is irrelevant. The world is what the world is whether you like it or not and no matter how you label it.
So, I have shown you the science. What does it take to get you to admit you are wrong when you so obviously are. I’ll wait.
Delighted that you enjoy my use of the word theory. It is not, however, the highest standard possible. That would be proof.
Did you know that there are MANY subjects in science that have had thousands of peer reviewed articles backing them up that have since been debunked. Peer review only means that other people have read the article and basically agree with it. Are you also aware that virtually all of the publications you are touting will not even accept articles that dispute naturalistic evolution – even if they are well researched? Peer review simply is not the best path to knowledge. That would be actual empirical research.
You don’t seem to understand the actual definition of science. You claim to have shown me the science, but you have shown no science at all. Articles are not science. Your argument is grossly flawed.
You also don’t seem to understand the distinction between science and naturalistic philosophy. I have not once tried to refute science. That would be the results that directly emerge from experiment and observation. What I dispute is your interpretation of data (which is neutral) based on naturalistic philosophy (which is a set of faith assumptions about the nature of reality). If you want your argument to have any credibility, you will have to justify your philosophical foundation based on the beliefs of that foundation. You have not even tried. Your argument is meaningless until you do.
In science, there is no higher standard then a well supported theory. You clearly fil to understand the term. The facts on which the theory is based re proven. Then the theory is promulgated to explain them. Then the theory gains authority as the predictions it makes are correct.
Yes. Peer reviewed science has been debunked… by more science. It has never been debunked by untrained laymen making incomprehensible claims about naturalism.
The science journals won’t accept creationist articles because the are not science. QED. The peer review process is what ensures that empirical research is really empirical and that it can be replicated as well as other things.
Science is the process which has proven the best way to learn about the workings of the universe. It involves using observable, testable, repeatable evidence to establish facts; using those facts to prove hypothesis, and developing powerful theories with predictive power from proven hypothesis. I think we can all see who does not understand science.
The articles are descriptions of scientific work done by professional experts in their field. Other professional experts have checked the methodology, statistical methods, etc. and determined them to be valid. You are not being grossly honest when you say I have not presented science. I have presented it in the very best way possible.
You have tried to refute science. Your claims about “micro-evolution” are exactly that. You of course failed but I still have to wonder, why would you deny the effort?
It isn’t my interpretation of the data you are denying. It is that of professionals and experts who produce these predictively powerful theories.
If you want your denial of science to have any validity, you will have to show why the scientific method doesn’t work. Please don’t try to again deny that you are rejecting science. At least try to be honest.
You seem to continue conflating micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They are not the same. One has all kinds of actual science to support it, and the other is a philosophical construct (not observable, testable, or repeatable). Until you understand the difference, your explanations are fatally flawed.
When I say you need to present the science, I mean I insist that you point me to the actual experiments or observations that demonstrate naturalistic evolution to be true. Simply telling me that other people have affirmed it is not showing me the science. As I keep saying, I have never denied or rejected science. You have not shown any science. All you have done it attempt to justify naturalistic philosophy. They are not the same.
You seem to keep failing to understand that “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” are not scientific terms. You keep failing to understand that the latter is merely the former happening over very long periods of time. It is observable, testable, and repeatable and I presented proof of that claim, which you ignorantly dismissed.
I did point you to the actual observations and experiments that prove evolution. They are in that journal. You know, the one you refused to even look at?
You have rejected science. You just seem to be afraid to admit it. You are clearly not educated on the subject and refuse to become so.
Actually, one is a scientific term and the other is a philosophical term. However, both terms describe the content of the discussion we are having. I have separated them so that it becomes possible to have an intelligent discussion. By conflating them, you are mixing categories and creating a situation where it is impossible to get at the issues involved. Until you come to understand the distinction, you will not be able to make a coherent argument. As I have said numerous times, I agree that micro-evolution (natural selection) is something that can be studied by science. Macro-evolution, however, is a philosophical construct that science has not demonstrated to be true (or even possible). Naturalistic evolution is based on naturalistic philosophy, not science. That is simply a fact. Your comments are factually wrong.
We are done. You are not honest. You do not support claims. You continue to make claims that have been proven false. You are just another arrogant, ignorant apologist with nothing of value to offer.
You repeatedly talk about micro- and macro- as if they are something different. I explained why you are wrong and linked you back to unequivocal, documented evidence and you were too cowardly to even look at it.
You are not an honest person. You are arrogant and ignorant and seemingly proud of it. You have certainly proven that you are not with engaging with.
Until you learn what science is, you will never be worth engaging with and will always be a backwards, uninformed person. Please, welcome to the last word. I won’t be reading it.
I do not support your interpretation of reality based on your unsupported naturalistic worldview beliefs. Your assertions about truth and falsity are simply, themselves, not true. By the same token, your personal evaluation about me and what I know have no basis in reality. You don’t know me, my background, or what I know.
I appreciate you informing me that micro and macro-evolution are one and the same – even though you can’t demonstrate that using the very requirements that you try to place on me. There is no science to show that to be true. Your statement is simply false on its face. Perhaps you should take a little time to understand what science is, and how to distinguish it from naturalistic philosophy.
I honestly do hope that someday you will come to know a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It will change your life.