Bill Maher Is Pissing Me Off A Bit

I really like the fact that Bill Maher is doing the circuit right now to promote his movie Religulous. I do think he is going to get many theists to question their beliefs and the real history of the bible, and perhaps even create many more atheists and agnostics in the process.

I've seen him on four shows now, and he has pretty much used the same material on each which is understandable. In case you haven't seen him, this interview is pretty much what he says more or less in a nutshell.

But it is the following that irks me:

When replying to this statement by an interviewer, "I guess that brings us to the topic of "Religulous," which I read as this effort to get agnostics and atheists out of the closet in American society," Bill Maher came back and said,
"That's certainly one of the goals. I don't use the word "atheist" about myself, because I think it mirrors the certitude I'm so opposed to in religion. What I say in the film is that I don't know. I don't know what happens when you die, and all the religious people who claim they do know are being ridiculous. I know that they don't know any more than I do. They do not have special powers that I don't possess. When they speak about the afterlife with such certainty and so many specifics, it just makes me laugh."

I have a feeling he is just trying to appeal to the masses by not labeling himself as an atheist. A term that causes many a theist to flinch. By labeling himself as agnostic, he is just trying to be accepted.

It is evident in everything he says beyond avoiding the atheism label, that he is an atheist.

An atheist doesn't have to say "there is no God, or no afterlife." Most of us say or think that "there is no evidence for God or an afterlife, so why even consider something that has no evidence to back it up?"

It is a cop out for Maher to say "I don't know what happens when we die." It is like saying "I don't know if Leprechauns live in Ireland and avoid being seen by humans." I'm sure that he is completely certain that since there is no evidence of an afterlife and since nothing else supernatural ever appears to happen, and since one can't trace back their existence before one is conceived, it a mathematical certainty that when we die, our consciousness dies with us.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that he is dissing atheists by misrepresenting what most atheists are, by equating atheism with religion, implying a religious fanatic and an atheist are equal when it comes to the person's certainty. An atheist does not have to be certain, just as someone doesn't have to be certain that an actual Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. Religious people buy into something based on zero evidence, while atheism is a position that doesn't accept things that have zero evidence.


Here is an interview I just watched for the first time this morning (I'm up to 5 interviews now):

I preach the Gospel of "I don't know." I don't buy it Bill. And either do you.

Although, he has stated that he considers Gods existence, I'm almost positive it is only for PC reasons to keep his audience as large as possible. If he realizes that believing in the bible is childish, he has to realize that the same line of reasoning applies to believing in any God. He doesn't consider that the bible could be real, so where exactly is the doubt?

See also, Bill Maher Is An Atheist, Whether He Knows It Or Not

I Feel Much Smarterer Now

Hey I'll be first to admit that I know a little about a lot of things (I do know a lot about a few things, but that is a different matter). I'm always searching for knowledge though, on things I know a little about, that either interest me, or are in the news. I probably Google 50 times a day on average.

I like 101 summations. The simpler the better. If I want to pursue the matter, at least I have the basic knowledge.

Two things that I will guarantee most people hear about currently, but know very little about are Climate Change, and this bailout thingy in the US.

Happily, just in the last couple of days, I have been enlightened on both subjects, and now it us to anyone reading this post, to enlighten themselves.

First is Climate Change aka The Global Warming debate. Potholer54 gives what I think is the most sincere and factual account of what the heck is going on with our atmosphere in completely understandable words. Seriously, this is worth the 10 minutes out of your busy schedule:

H/T The Atheist Media Blog

Now for the Freddie/Fannie mess? How did it happen? Got 3 minutes?

H/T The guy behind Eye On The World

What? It wasn't caused by the 6 Jews who control the world? How can that be? Oh yeah, Fox news is controlled by those Jews. What was I thinking?

I Do Attract My Fair Share Of Lunatics

I'd like to think that most of my readers are as sane and rational as myself. In fact, I know this is the case because I do read the blogs that have me on their blogrolls.

But I do have nuts that visit. And some of them are so "impressed/shocked/disgusted/etc." by my postings that they write a post about me or at least quote me in their posts.

My site meter is a good source to see if I'm being mentioned, as sometimes I see a few hits from a site I'm not familiar with or a site I normally never get any hits from.
Lots of times a post of mine is linked in a message board. Heck, that is why I blog in the first place. I want to be read by as many people as possible.

I also do a Google Blog search every few days of "atheist Jew." Sometimes I find blogs that have no following write about me (thus no site meter hits), or someone who mentions me but doesn't link to my blog.

Recently, just in the last few days, I've become really popular amongst the nutters.

First, this 9/11 denying nut bar who has a blog named The State Of The Mind (Spreading the Truth about God) dedicated a post to me called 'The Stupidity of "the Atheist Jew"'

Here is what his main gripe is:

Now wait a minute. First of all, there’s no reason to capitalize “Gods,” because “gods” is not a proper noun. Second of all, where exactly do we get the rule that someone is “Jewish” if their mother is Jewish? From Judaism! But what is that to someone who doesn’t believe in Judaism? By accepting this definition of a Jew, he is accepting Judaism as a valid religion, because there is no reason for a non-Jew to accept this definition of a Jew. What an idiot.

I hate atheist pseudo-Jews. I told you: it’s the bacon-eating, Sabbath-violating, don’t-know-much-about-Judaism “Jews” that are the problem; not the real Jews, or those who sympathize with the real Jews. And of course, he’s Leftist in his views. Surprise me not.

Of course, my attempt to explain (in his comment section which he conveniently edited to suit himself) how the concept of an atheist Jew is completely valid was just wilfully denied by this yo yo.

Honestly, I don't think there are too many atheist Jews out there who do not acknowledge themselves as being ethnic Jews. Even by almost every definition, the world, most rabbis, Webster's, Jew haters, my neighbours, and even my God believing family members and friends, I will be a Jew from the day I was born until the day I die.

Even Richard Dawkins recently called himself a cultural Christian. So I think he gets it too.


Lets move on. I recently got a mention from this guy:

'Bill White, is the self-appointed leader of the American National Socialist Workers' Party and the administrator of the antisemitic (and racist) website Overthrow.com.'

He quoted me in a post named Breaking White Nationalism's Rules. You can almost sympathize with this kook as he seems to realize that he and his ilk have no following. Here is my quote he uses:

“The reason you feel censored is because you have no audience.”

I was talking about a different white separatist/supremacist, but you can paint them all with one brush in this instance.

He did say something that I found really funny (funny that it is true and funny that he actually realizes it and doesn't just say to himself, "what the hell am I doing with my life?"):

"I see the morons that compose the “white nationalist” “movement” in this country and I just hand my head in shame that someone might mistake my views for having something in common with them. As I reflected this evening, waiting outside the home of a recalcitrant tenant to collect their paycheck from them when they got home from work, it occurred to me that I’ve done three things wrong in relating to other white-ish activists:

1) I’ve rejected lunacy;

2) I’ve rejected homosexuality;

3) I’ve rejected pedophilia.

If you combine the last two into “queerness”, I’ve only done two things wrong, but with the same effect.

What I have come to realize, having sat in meetings of everything from communists to Democrats to Republicans to white nationalists to all sorts of bizarre offshoots, is that most people who get involved in political groups, regardless of stripe, are lunatics. The question is just whether their lunacy is useful to the people in power, as to how far they get with it. Most rank and file members of the two major parties are as crazy as communists and white nationalists, and one only has to read the DailyKos or FreeRepublic to know it.

What I’ve also come to realize is that by rejecting lunatics and sexual deviants I have written off perhaps two thirds of the white movement right off the top.

"

He seems somewhat intelligent, but he is totally out to lunch when it comes to his outlook of Jews. You have to wonder what made him turn out that way.

He came to the realization that John de Nugent is a lunatic, maybe he is intelligent enough to look in his own mirror and give himself a slap in the face when it comes to scapegoating Jews. I sum up the insanity of the Judeophobe in this post on my other blog, Judeophobe Watch.



Finally, The Jewish Conspiracy Exposed has written a post about me called "Jewish blogger claims that Judeophobic web sites don't allow critique in their blogs, has all comments moderated by Jewish admin"

This person is a real conspiracy believing nut case:

'Oddly Jews always manage to accuse Goyims of crimes that they do themselves. Now this one Jewish blogger claims that anti-Semites never let God’s chosen ones to refute their claims. But truth is that you cannot see any real critique of Israel or Jews in MSM, which is owned by Jews. But when you visit few blogs and forums that allow

Actually you can go to Stormfront.org and be a Jew and debunk, refute, chastise and debate with them. I have no moderation at all in this blog, only spam filter that might caught suspicious postings. But this Jew who says that anti-Semites don’t let Jews to debunk is just typical Ghetto Jews, full of Jewish lies. Jews have given me death threats thru my comments, and I didn’t start to moderate comments. I think it’s good that kikes will post to my blog, and then people will see what soulless creatures they really are.'

I pointed out many anti-semitic web sites that don't allow my comments. I also explained why I used comment moderation for the longest time.

Like him, but for different reasons obviously:), I like it when I get nutters to comment on my blogs, and I always publish them as long as they are on topic. These whackjobs make for excellent entertainment, and I want as many people as possible to be informed they actually exist, and get entertained at the same time.

Church Of England (Anglicans) Takes Giant Step Into The 21st Century

Around a year ago, the new Pope, Pope Whatshisname, oh wait, is it Pope Arnold?, no no no, Pope Benedict, yeah that's the ticket, embraced evolution.

Now the Anglicans have finally decided to embrace evolution too. In fact, they have gone a step further and apologized to Charles Darwin.

Really, they should apologize to the Anglicans, who have been told by many an Anglican priest, to deny evolution. In other words to deny reality.

I think the Anglicans are understanding that by deny evolution in today's computer world is slow suicide:

"

Anglican leaders fear that “noisy” advocates of a literal interpretation of the Bible - especially in the United States...are infecting the perception of Christianity worldwide.

"

I love the term "noisy creationists." Every science or atheist blog gets comments from them. They are all over Youtube too. And the best part is that they are getting clobbered in cyberspace. Clobbered, because they are arguing against fact.
And lurkers, who assumed everything they heard in church or from their parents is true, are now questioning everything to the point that they realize that they are being lied to.

If faith is presented as genuine faith, it isn't a lie. But if faith is dependent on the earth being flat or evolution being false, then it is a lie, and especially the young people are getting it.

Back to the Anglicans. I really get lost when I try to figure out the differences between different Christian sub cults, like Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews for Jesus, Anglicans, etc.

I read that Anglicans are sort of between Catholics and Baptists, whatever that means. I was also told that Anglicans are really Catholics who believe the King or Queen of England is the Pope. In other words, they must be more progressive towards science than the noisy Fundy Baptists.

Anyway, the Church of England has a web site, and yesterday they officially devoted a few pages to Charles Darwin and evolution.

Question For Macro Evolution Denying Creationists

Everyone has heard the feeble creationist argument that they have no problem with micro evolution, which allows for humans to collectively change heights over the years, or for new generations of frogs to have longer legs than their predecessors in Australia, and even to allow for a pair Ark dogs to be the common ancestor for all dogs on the planet today. But this is where they conveniently stop allowing for evolution to happen, because they say "how can man and "stinking apes" share a common ancestor? Besides, a literal translation of the bible doesn't allow for it, so it can't be true."

Ok, so here is my question (assuming you agree with the examples of micro evolution I cited above):

If microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, then what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?


If this is your answer.....

.......maybe you need to educate yourself some more on the topic.

Evolution is evolution. Micro evolution is just a classification for small changes, while macro evolution describes lots and lots of micro evolution that happened over usually a very large time period.

For a more scientific response, please watch this video. It explains how evolution happens. And you'll notice that there is no scientific reason for fins to not be able to change into limbs, for example:


H/T to Austin Cline from About.com Agnosticism/Atheism, for coming up with the question.