Monday, January 6, 2014
Maher Versus O'Reilly on Religion: Six Minutes of Cogent Content When You Need a Lifter
This is from a few years back but it illustrates just how TV can still bring forth pithy dialogue and interesting, funny, and somewhat illustrious drama--in this particular instance, the sweet nothingness of Bill O'Reilly and his defense of religion versus that master of snarky himself, Bill Maher.
*Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love how Bill O'Reilly uses simple wit to make his guests and their often asinine positions crumble. And he does it all within minutes!
ReplyDeleteOReilly's wit is simple, that's for sure.
Delete"Stupid is as stupid does" simple. Give Maher a lobotomy and it would still be an unfair fight. Oh, and O'Reilly is about as Godly as my sphincter.
Deleteanon at 10:50pm...I like your use of sarcasm to prove your point. Very effective.
ReplyDeleteBill Maher is an enthusiastic observer of current events but an intellectual lightweight. His understanding of how humans subscribe to belief systems is as flawed as is his argument against belief.
ReplyDeleteBelief is a form of cognitive freedom, and those compelled to subscribe to a belief system remain free to embrace it in whatever form they find comforting. Christians are free to take the Bible literally (including all the typos, as H.L. Mencken once quipped) or treat it however suits their needs -- needs that can be either personal or communal. Like all belief systems, Christianity is a closed system: either you believe or you don't, and if you don't your opinion about the value of believing is devoid of credibility.
But I wonder, under what definition of "critical thinking" can Bill Maher, a non-believer, justify the cherry-picking of elements of any spiritual belief system (to attempt to do so is as arrogant and absurd as the Pope critiquing evolution)? Perhaps the all-knowing Mr. Maher might also share his theoretical opinion about eson xorgol, a Mongolian game played with goat droppings, one that, like being a Christian, he knows nothing.
Lastly, as was most recently demonstrated in the USSR, a society free of what Mr. Maher calls the "stupidity of religion" guarantees neither happier humans, better government, or a healthier society. Tellingly, after three generations of religious suppression, the newly freed Russian people rushed back to the church, apparently eager for a chance to escape the atheist reality and enjoy the "purposeful suspension of critical thinking."
Is this assuming the Russian Orthodox Church does not exist?
DeleteIn what way was I assuming anything?
Delete> Lastly, as was most recently demonstrated in the USSR, a society
Delete> free of what Mr. Maher calls the "stupidity of religion"
> guarantees neither happier humans, better government,
> or a healthier society.
Or, as is more recently demonstrated in Scandinavian countries that are all but atheistic, a society free of what Mr. Maher calls the "stupidity of religion" can lead the world in education, health, wealth, and quality of life. And a society with an extremely religious population and high intolerance for anyone who believes otherwise, such as Ghana, can be corrupt and backwards. After all, you were the one talking about cherry-picking.
Brain, your ignorance is staggering. The USSR experience offers objective observers an unprecedented opportunity to witness the allure of faith to a people whose religious traditions had been all but erased by an all-powerful government. These people were neither conforming nor rebelling, but simply following their natural inclinations. Had their behavior involved the purchase of rap music rather than the embrace of religion, I'm sure the American media would've been all over the story, but because it was religion being consumed, it wasn't deemed newsworthy.
DeleteYour offering up the example of Scandinavia does nothing to contradict my point, as I never attempted to demonize atheism, but was instead attempting to show that Mr. Maher's faith in the superiority of non-belief is just that, faith. Man's relationship with religion is complex and befuddling, just as is his relationship with objective truths. By the way, you might want to check your sources regarding Scandinavian religiosity (which smell suspiciously like the NY Times). ARDA (the Association of Religious Data Archives) has collected statistics that absolutely contradict your claim. You can check them out for yourself at www.thearda.com
Rich, Whenever I see or think of Bill O'Pervert....
ReplyDeleteI mean Reilly.
I always remember this sordid episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu1b_GpXM8
Also...Within the video there's a photo flash of our favorite: Mattress Man!
(to attempt to do so is as arrogant and absurd as the Pope critiquing evolution).... I think you are implying that the Pope, and therefore Catholic teaching, does not subscribe to the theory of evolution - incorrect, "Theistic evolutionism" is the official position of the Catholic church. In a nutshell - God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul".
ReplyDeleteWhat I was actually implying is that the Pope is a religious scholar, and while his position may require him to rectify his church's doctrines with the sciences, he will himself be forever restrained by belief, and is thus unqualified to critique any subject that demands objectivity.
DeleteO'Reilly is a self-righteous, egotistical, smug apologist for the right wing of the GOP. Maher may be irreverent and annoying, but he runs circles around the bloviating O'Reilly. Thanks for posting this video Rich to show us what a total fool that O'Reilly truly is!
ReplyDelete