The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Bill Maher.........Rationalist?

Bill Maher.........Rationalist?

Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Friday, January 14 2011, 14:55:14 (UTC) from *** - *** - Windows NT - Internet Explorer Website: Website title:

....a rationalist believes in reason, in facts, in logic, in what is observable and also what can logically be deduced when "all the facts" are not available yet, or may never be...no fantastic explanations based on the supernatural or wishfull thinking allowed. But Maher seems to me to have a few blindspots where his reasoning faculties break down precisely because ALL the facts are not in, or might never be. One blindspot is his attitude towards Islam and the supposed threat it poses to the world...how any rationalist could look back at the history of conflict in the world for the past 200 years and conculde that Islam, and not Christianity, poses the greatest threat to world peace, I can´t understand. But, let´s agree with him that right at this moment it might seem that Islam is the actual threat...but who brought it to this point? Did Muslims spontaneously and all on their own start hating Jews...or was the creation of this European colony in their midst and the blind support and use of Isarel by the United States have anything to do with it? Not to mention the enormous amounts of money made selling weapons to an Israel that HAD to deserve all of this by goading the Palestinians into defending themselves and calling THAT "agression" which of course required Isarel to "defend itself". If a woman, after years of abuse finally fights back, should her "violence" be feared...or the rapist and abuser who brought her to such a desperate pass? the other place his logic breaks down is contemplating, seriously, questions surrounding 9/11. As someone who has lived through government lies about the Gulf of Tonkin and WMDs as a pretexst for war, is it more weird to distrust government...or trust it? Are the "nuts" the ones who refuse to believe the official version, or the ones who believe it? 3000 Americans died on 9/11....that´s still less than Americans who have been killed, just as brutally, in the wars in Afghaniatan and Iraq. If over 5000 Americans can be sold down the river by their government, based on lies (not to mention Vietnam and the 55,000 who died for that lie), what´s so odd in wondering if 3000 were also sacrificed for "the greater good"...which, in this case, as in the other, really means the greater good of great profits made by a few, a few who like Bush, were incompetant at making money in any honest pursuit. What evidence can Maher produce to show that in the case of 9/11 our government would NOT lie...when he knows that it has created bigger lies that have cost even more lives? And, even more to the point, is the only reason that Maher accepts the truth about the lies of Tonkin and Iraq because the evidence for the lies was finally revealed...and, the corollary, what if no evidence ever materialized...does a "rationalist" have to depend on someone else providing the evidence and, if none is available, having to suspend his reason and believe whatever he is told? Seems to me a true rationalist is the one who can still come to a reasoned perception of reality even when all the facts don´t exist, or can´t exist or may never be known...certainly scientific theory functions just like that...you pose a hypothesis which, by definition, doesn´t have the facts to back it up...but it points you in a direction where the needed facts might be found. No one is saying they know for sure what the real truth is...but given all that is factual, all that we know and don´t yet know, or can´t yet prove...plus all we know about government lies...is it so weird to demand a wider probe? It seems to me, from watching Maher dismiss questions about the official version of 9/11, that he doesn´t want to look, even when he can´t quite explain discrepancies....I can imagine him, in 1966, laughing at anyone who suggested there may not have been an attack in Tonkin..or that the United States likely forced an attack by provoking the Vietnamese....that would just have been too outrageous for Maher back then...he had to wait, as a rationalist, for 30 some years till the evidence was put in his face....the point is not that he should have believed facts where there were none back in 66...but would he have encouraged a real investigation back then? That´s the whole point. 9/11 has been in some measure swept under the rug...we don´t really want to know if there is more behind it...and anyone who remains unsatisfied is dismissed, even by those you would think by now would know better...would know that at the least a better investigation is called for...after all, even the Congress, in 1978, reopened the question of more than one assassin in the JFK case and, based on new evidence, determined that there was indeed at least one more shooter...the point is they went LOOKING...that is what seems to be lacking where 9/11 is concerned..and it is disappinting to see a "rationalist" eager to join the chorus who insist the official version is the only truth allowed, and who seem desperate to make sure it remains the only one. A true rationalist knows that in many instances all the facts will NEVER be known...but is that a reason to believe George Bush? --------------------- - BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic: Bill Maher.........Rationalist? pancho - Friday, January 14 2011, 14:55:14 (UTC) Re: Bill Maher.........Rationalist? Rashad - 01/14 22:01

***

Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9