Bill Mahar's atheistic arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter SusanL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just got a glimpse of The View (something I don’t normally watch) and I saw Bill Mahar on it. Bill Mahar is not only extremely anti-Catholic, he’s extremely anti-Christian (meaning all of us Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.)
I have had these conversations with atheists. When I was an atheist, and now as a Catholic. Interesting dialog, and of course, now, we just have to agree to disagree.

Maher is not interested in dialog. He is the very same sort of person that he criticizes, the sort of fiery preacher who has no interest in dialog, and only wants to get up to a microphone and tell everyone they are going to hell. Only, Maher’s fiery preaching is telling everyone who doesn’t believe as he does that they are somehow defective, either in intellect or psychological makeup.

No dialog can be had with this type of person, atheist or not.
 
I would also go the way of the others and ignore Maher…he’s an intellectual insect.
:rotfl:

I agree. Ignore what he says and pray for him, you never know what will happen. Once upon a time, there was this guy named Saul…
I wonder, why is exposing nonsense for what it is… malicious

That’s not the point. Whether you believe the subject matter to be “nonsense” or not, if you’ve ever seen or heard Maher it’s clear that his arguments consist of mocking and ridicule…which in my book equals malicious, especially since it lacks intellectual character.

It’s not just what he says, it’s how he goes about it.
 
Go ahead, then. He is talking about the nonsensical claims of “virgin birth” - with a male offspring - among other things. Just go ahead and show how is it biologically possible to have a male child as the result of virgin birth, where the woman’s genes are not combined with those of a male, and therefore the child will be the genetic replica of the mother.

I’m curious. If you take into consideration our belief in a divine God who created the universe, then why would this be considered “nonsensical?” We’re not doing the Virgin birth. He is. I understand that you listed yourself as having no religion. Would you agree that it would not be nonsensical to those who do have a religion and faith? The concept makes sense under those conditions, yes?

Secondly: That is not the point that I heard Bill Maher saying. I’m sure that that is what he believes but not the point I was talking about. He was claiming that there were stories from other cultures and other religions that mimic the story of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. That was the point I wanted to address.

Modern TV talk shows do not lend themselves to in-depth analysis of complex questions. Boy, have you got that right!! 😉
 
I wonder, why is exposing nonsense for what it is… malicious?

If it was simply a matter of “exposing nonsense,” that would be something we could handle. In fact, most people here would absolutely love a reasonable discussion on this sort of thing. But as others have said in other posts, he is absolutely insulting. Name-calling is malicious. Mocking us out is malicious. He is not interested in a reasonable discussion.

And he does not have the courage that you have demonstrated so far. (At least in this thread that I have seen. lol. ;)) You, my friend, have a great deal of courage. You are discussing this subject on a ***Catholic forum!!! ***👍 Whether or not you change your mind is not the point. You have gone to where this man wouldn’t dare to go. And you’re daring to dialogue. Kudos to you, my friend.

Now that is true! They sure don’t. 🙂

If only you could substantiate that there is an “eternal soul”, your argument would be worthy of consideration. What kind of proof are you looking for? I’m just curious.
 
I just got a glimpse of The View (something I don’t normally watch) and I saw Bill Mahar on it. Bill Mahar is not only extremely anti-Catholic, he’s extremely anti-Christian (meaning all of us Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.)

He gave an argument that the story of the virgin birth of Christ and also his death and resurrection after 3 days was in other cultures previously. That this was nothing new.

Now, I hold no stock in anything Bill Mahar has to say but I would like to be able to refute it intelligently. From what little I saw, the two Christian ladies there were stumped and limped along terribly. It was very shortly after that “argument” that they went to a commercial break after which he wasn’t to reappear so there’s no chance for a real rebuttal.

sigh (how many souls were lost due to this confusion and lack of information? This hit and run?)

Can anyone give me direction in how to rebut such an argument as my own brother is agnostic/atheist? (I might have such an opportunity come up again).

I could have answered at least one of the objections better than those two ladies but to be fair…the camera is on and time was oh, so short.

Thank you for any help you can give me.

Sue
I love the fact that anti-Catholics and all those who don’t believe in Christ must rely on falacies and false information to support their arguments against Christ and His Church.
 
OK. I will show that it is biologically possible.
I did not say that is biologically impossible. Quite the contrary, such things can happen. What is biologically impossible to have a male specimen emerge from it.
First category: Miraculous Virgin Births

In discussing miraculous occurrences of males being born to virgins (I only know of one such occurrence), we first make certain assumptions. The most important one of which is that there exists a being, namely God, capable of interfering in the natural order to such an extent that He can cause a virgin to become pregnant.

It is then no leap at all to decide that He could choose the sex of the child.
Irrelevant. It is not a biological possibility. If you wish to bring God into the picture, you must prove that he exists, and has the aforementioned capabilities. As you say it later, you are not interested, which is fine.
Second category: Non-Miraculous Virgin Births

Although I am not necessarily aware of these occurring very much among human females, it is certainly possible. I would even go so far as to say with some certainty that it has occurred.

Artificial insemination or in vitro insemination and then implantation could very plainly lead to a female remaining a virgin , becoming pregnant, and giving birth to a male offspring. With modern egg harvesting techniques this offspring could even be genetically hers.

It seems to me then that, in light of the second category, which man has achieved, it would seem foolish for one to attempt to argue that God is limited and cannot do such a thing. This is arguing from the assumption that God exists. I don’t really want to get into the existence argument right now, as I know that you don’t believe in God.
You are playing word-games. A “virgin birth” means the lack of male participation, artificial or otherwise. There is no sperm involved, only the egg.

In labs there were several experiments, where the female egg was “enticed” into starting a multiplcation process. It was mostly done with frogs. The excited egg did grow into the genetic equivalent of the mother - not surprisingly, since there was no mixture of male and female chromosomes.

As a matter of fact, there is a hilarious joke about this. Unfortunately it might offend some people, so I will not include it. If you want to read it, send me a PM.
 
If it was simply a matter of “exposing nonsense,” that would be something we could handle. In fact, most people here would absolutely love a reasonable discussion on this sort of thing. But as others have said in other posts, he is absolutely insulting. Name-calling is malicious. Mocking us out is malicious. He is not interested in a reasonable discussion.
I don’t know that, and neither do you. A short TV program is not conducive to an in-depth analysis. I am certainly attempting to conduct a reasonable dialog.
And he does not have the courage that you have demonstrated so far. (At least in this thread that I have seen. lol. ) You, my friend, have a great deal of courage. You are discussing this subject on a Catholic forum!!! Whether or not you change your mind is not the point. You have gone to where this man wouldn’t dare to go. And you’re daring to dialogue. Kudos to you, my friend.
I am not sure that it requires courage. I do not attempt to antagonize anyone, and so far I had very nice and civil discussions. (There were some exceptions, but in those cases I simply ignore the rude posters.) And what can happen to me on an internet forum? I can get banned, but that would not harm me in any way.

So, don’t give me credit for being here. I don’t deserve it.
What kind of proof are you looking for? I’m just curious.
Well, a good definition would be a nice start. Just “what” is a soul? And then some arguments that it is “immortal”. Something along those lines.

Here is an explantion how the concept of the soul emerged. We know that the brain needs a rest, and to get it, biology “arranged” us to have dreams. Even animals dream. Sometimes we remember dreams, especially the very vivid ones. Now way, way back in the caveman era, people had no idea about dreams. They dreamed about their dead relatives, and so they assumed that humans have a “non-material” part in them, which survives the death. That is all. A simple “explanation” which seemed very logical to them. And it survived all these millenia. Now that is pretty amazing.

Obviously there is no way to go “back” and verify if this hypothesis is correct or not, but I find it very reasonable and convincing.
 
I’m curious. If you take into consideration our belief in a divine God who created the universe, then why would this be considered “nonsensical?” We’re not doing the Virgin birth. He is. I understand that you listed yourself as having no religion. Would you agree that it would not be nonsensical to those who do have a religion and faith? The concept makes sense under those conditions, yes?
Certainly does.
Secondly: That is not the point that I heard Bill Maher saying. I’m sure that that is what he believes but not the point I was talking about. He was claiming that there were stories from other cultures and other religions that mimic the story of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. That was the point I wanted to address.
But there were… many of them. Almost all ancient religions had a “hero” who was born to a virgin. People in many cultures held virginity in high regard.
 
Almost all ancient religions had a “hero” who was born to a virgin. People in many cultures held virginity in high regard.
So what? It makes perfect sense that, if God wanted to reach a wide range of people and cultures, He would do it in a way that was familiar to them.

Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 
Read the Catechism - paragraphs 362-368

Here
OK. I hope it is allowed to quote.362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239
Is the highlighted part what is supposed to be an evidence for the “immortal soul”? As far as I am concerned it is not more than an old superstition… but thanks for the link to confirm my suspicions.
 
So what? It makes perfect sense that, if God wanted to reach a wide range of people and cultures, He would do it in a way that was familiar to them.

Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
OK. So Bill Maher’s assertion that the Biblical idea of a “virgin birth” was “borrowed” from old pagan religions. If that is the case, why the uproar for him stating the obvious?

You can’t have it both ways. Either God “inspired” those ancient religions and then Christianity is just a “re-hashing” of the old stuff, or Christianity is truly “unique” and - supposedly - superior. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

There is almost nothing in Christianty which is truly “new”. The halo around the saint’s heads was borrowed from the Egyptian sun-worshippers. Christmas was borrowed from the pagan winter solstice celebrations - the renewal of nature (though Christmas is off by a few days). Virgin birth was borrowed from other old religions.

There is nothing new under the Sun…

If only those stupid Romans did not persecute the early Christians, there would be no Christianity today. It is always dumb to persecute deviant ideologies. It only makes them stronger.
 
Go ahead, then. He is talking about the nonsensical claims of “virgin birth” - with a male offspring - among other things. Just go ahead and show how is it biologically possible to have a male child as the result of virgin birth, where the woman’s genes are not combined with those of a male, and therefore the child will be the genetic replica of the mother.
Bees do it all the time. All females are born of fertilization with the drone. They are all sterile.
The drone are all born of parthenogenesis, ie. unfertilized eggs.
Modern TV talk shows do not lend themselves to in-depth analysis of complex questions.
Well, you’re right there.
 
Certainly does.

But there were… many of them. Almost all ancient religions had a “hero” who was born to a virgin. People in many cultures held virginity in high regard.
Name one.

I think Maher mentioned Horus as one. I have seen the image of Isis, in the form of a bird, perched on his father’s corpse, in the temple of Seti I in Abydos.

The picture clearly shows how Isis is perched: it’s not by her feet, an what she is perched on, or rather what part of Osiris she is perched on.

Graphic evidence, the Egyptians did not believe in a “virgin birth” for Horus.
 
OK. I hope it is allowed to quote.362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239
Is the highlighted part what is supposed to be an evidence for the “immortal soul”? As far as I am concerned it is not more than an old superstition… but thanks for the link to confirm my suspicions.
Btw, can you tell us what is the difference between the body an hour before death, and the corpse an hour after death.
 
You can’t have it both ways. Either God “inspired” those ancient religions and then Christianity is just a “re-hashing” of the old stuff, or Christianity is truly “unique” and - supposedly - superior. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
There is almost nothing in Christianty which is truly “new”. The halo around the saint’s heads was borrowed from the Egyptian sun-worshippers. Christmas was borrowed from the pagan winter solstice celebrations - the renewal of nature (though Christmas is off by a few days). Virgin birth was borrowed from other old religions.
There is nothing new under the Sun…
If only those stupid Romans did not persecute the early Christians, there would be no Christianity today. It is always dumb to persecute deviant ideologies. It only makes them stronger.
God condescending down to our level, to actually be born of a human woman, in order to save us from our sins, in a completely selfless act of self-giving love, for every person who will ever live. Gods of mythology are anthropomorphized jerks with serious psychological problems. God lacks all human weakness and actually decided to become one of us in order to save us. Your skepticism is starting to sound more like cynicism. No longer the robust scepticism we spoke of earlier. My thoughts are with you. Go on vacation.

Jon
 
ateista << There is almost nothing in Christianty which is truly “new”. The halo around the saint’s heads was borrowed from the Egyptian sun-worshippers. Christmas was borrowed from the pagan winter solstice celebrations - the renewal of nature (though Christmas is off by a few days). Virgin birth was borrowed from other old religions. >>

The halo comes not from the Egyptians, but from the Greeks/Romans. The use of halos in Christian iconography is simply the Church recognizing the usefulness of an artistic motif. (See my The Da Vinci Code Fraud article)

Here are your differences. What the pagan myths teach:

– central to the mysteries was the annual vegetation cycle where life is renewed each spring and died each fall; the cults found symbolic and spiritual significance in the natural process of growth, death, decay, and rebirth;

– many mystery religions involved secret ceremonies, sometimes in connection with an initiation rite, with esoteric knowledge revealed to the participant;

– a basic element was a myth in which the deity dies or “disappears” (and then “returns” or “revives” or “reappears” or is “restored”) and otherwise triumphs over enemies;

– unlike the early Christians, the mysteries had little use for correct doctrine, dogma, or belief; they were primarily concerned with the emotional state of their followers and appealed to the imagination;

– the immediate goal was a mystical or religious experience in order to achieve union with their god, or otherwise some kind of “salvation” of the soul or immortality or deification.

What Christians believe about Christ in contrast to the pagan gods:

– none of the so-called “savior-gods” died for someone else; Jesus Christ the Son of God died in place of His creatures (1 Cor 15:3-4; Romans 5:6-8; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Tim 2:4-6) which is unique to Christianity;

– only Jesus died on the cross for sin, the pagan gods are never claimed to die for sins; they were not crucified (there are in fact NO “crucified saviors” other than Jesus) but died violently by other means (self-emasculation; hunting accident; ripped apart by wild boars or the Titans or crazed women or jealous brothers; etc);

– Jesus died once for all (Heb 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14); many of the pagan gods were vegetation deities whose repeated death and “rebirth” depicted the annual cycle of nature; it is a mythical drama with no historical ties;

– the early Christian church believed its proclamation of Jesus’ one-time death upon the cross and bodily resurrection is grounded upon what actually happened in history (“we are witnesses of these things” cf. Acts 1:1-4; 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39-41; Luke 1:1-4; 24:48; 1 John 1:1-3; 2 Peter 1:16).

– unlike the pagan gods, Jesus dies voluntarily (John 10:10-18; Phil 2:5-11);

– Jesus’ death was not a defeat but a triumph (1 Cor 15:54-58; Col 2:14-15; 2 Tim 1:10; cf. September 14 is the “Feast of the Triumph of the Cross” or the “Exaltation of the Cross,” the “Elevation of the Cross,” etc; the liturgy of the Cross is a triumphant liturgy).

A summary of Ronald Nash The Gospel and the Greeks (2003) concluding section:

– The arguments of the “syncretist case” illustrates the logical fallacy of first cause: mere coincidence or similarity does not prove dependence or causal connection;

– Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions are either exaggerated or simply false; there are no other crucified and resurrected saviors besides Jesus Christ;

– The chronology is wrong: almost all of our sources of information for supposed Christian “parallels” with pagan religions are very late (i.e. post-Christian); these include Adonis (2nd to 5th century AD); Attis (5th century AD); Mithras (late 1st century AD and beyond); the “crucified” Orpheus amulet (3rd or 4th century AD, but probably a fake); the “resurrection and ascension” of Krishna (the complete text known from the 1st century AD); this is too late for the New Testament writers themselves to have been influenced by such accounts;

– the full development of the mystery religions occurred in the 2nd century and later (with the exception of the Greek Dionysos) and we must distinguish between the different forms of the cults; the later forms are not necessarily present in the earlier forms;

– The apostles would not have borrowed from the pagan religions since their training and background was in Judaism (Phil 3:5); they rejected the alien speculations of syncretism and gnosticism (Col 2:7-8; 1 Tim 4:1-5; 1 John 4:1-6);

– any genuine parallels that exist reflect an ascendant Christian influence on the dying pagan systems; furthermore, since Jesus, His apostles, and many of their first disciples were all Jews, Christianity’s doctrinal roots, rituals, and liturgy lay in Judaism not paganism;

– Christianity is a monotheistic religion (one God) and an exclusive faith (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) with a definite body of doctrine (the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the sacraments, one revelation from God through Christ to His apostles passed on through Scripture and Tradition, an apostolic succession and hierarchy of bishops to safeguard that doctrine, etc);

– The religion of the apostles and their successors was grounded in events that actually happened in history at a particular place and time (the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth); the mysticism and mythology of the mystery cults was essentially non-historical.

From my Pagan Parallel “Saviors” Examined

Also my All About Horus: An Egyptian Copy of Christ?

Phil P
 
If only those stupid Romans did not persecute the early Christians, there would be no Christianity today. It is always dumb to persecute deviant ideologies. It only makes them stronger.
I was going to take umbrage at this comment, but prayed about it instead, and was given a much funnier perspective.

Thank you, ateista, for making us stronger. Thank you for helping assure that there will be Christianity in the future. :V
 
Bees do it all the time. All females are born of fertilization with the drone. They are all sterile.
The drone are all born of parthenogenesis, ie. unfertilized eggs.
True. But bees are insects. A different ballgame.
 
Is the highlighted part what is supposed to be an evidence for the “immortal soul”? As far as I am concerned it is not more than an old superstition… but thanks for the link to confirm my suspicions.
It is certainly a proof from the standpoint that it is the Church’s teaching. But, the section is more to provide you with a definition of “soul” - which is the first thing you said you wanted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top