Religion, what's the point?

[RexHamilton]

He does a pop number on the problem of evil. It's actually much more difficult to refute in its stripped-down and logical form:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Yeah was going to post that Epicurus quote. That was the gist of his argument. He was just trying to put it into real terms with real numbers.

 

[peterstorey]

Yeah was going to post that Epicurus quote. That was the gist of his argument. He was just trying to put it into real terms with real numbers.

It's fun knockabout stuff but I think it diffuses the hard logic and makes it easier to argue against. Are those numbers right? Does Christianity really say non-believers can't go to heaven?

 

[JohnDoe]

He does a pop number on the problem of evil. It's actually much more difficult to refute in its stripped-down and logical form:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

He's not talking to a group of philosophers though, he's talking to an audience largely consisting of Christians, and that takes a different kind of rhetoric. You're not going to convince them by simply restating Epicurus' argument verbatim, dropping mic and sitting down.

 

[bishblaize]

He does a pop number on the problem of evil. It's actually much more difficult to refute in its stripped-down and logical form:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Silly argument with an obvious flaw in it.

Does the fact that I'm prepared to let my two year old run around the garden, fall over and graze his knee from time to time make me 'malevolent'? Or does it mean I know that an important part of growing up is learning to deal with challenges and difficulties?

If you can convince me that free will (in the theological sense) is a bad thing then the paradox has merit. Otherwise not.

I dont even believe in God and I don't find this meritous.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Silly argument with an obvious flaw in it.

Does the fact that I'm prepared to let my two year old run around the garden, fall over and graze his knee from time to time make me 'malevolent'? Or does it mean I know that an important part of growing up is learning to deal with challenges and difficulties?

If you can convince me that free will (in the theological sense) is a bad thing then the paradox has merit. Otherwise not.

I dont even believe in God and I don't find this meritous.

It isn't about free will except the free will of an all powerful all knowing god who created all life on earth.


So the bubonic plague god created that and the rats that carried it and the flea which which passed it onto humans. It killed between 30% and 60% of all humans in Europe. How does that enhance free will?

By the way all powerful means just that so why make the world with suffering in order to have free will when you can make a world without suffering and keep free will if you are an all powerful god that is.

 

[peterstorey]

Silly argument with an obvious flaw in it.

Does the fact that I'm prepared to let my two year old run around the garden, fall over and graze his knee from time to time make me 'malevolent'? Or does it mean I know that an important part of growing up is learning to deal with challenges and difficulties?

If you can convince me that free will (in the theological sense) is a bad thing then the paradox has merit. Otherwise not.

I dont even believe in God and I don't find this meritous.

That's not a rebuttal (not surprising since no-one has managed to do it in 2000 years, even Plantinga, who invented modal logic specifically to do so).

 

[JSArsenal]

1) Christians only really say things shouldn't be taken literally when it suits them. Slavery was fine, until it wasn't fine in normal life anymore and then they said, that's not really what is meant in the bible. You still see it with Homosexuality. The anti-gay crowd saying it's an abomination because the bible says so. In fifty years time Christians will laugh at the notion that they ever opposed Homosexuality because it will be such an accepted and normal way of life.

2) How would good stuff happening be evidence for God. He has said the opposite. He even used people thanking god for small trivial things as an example of how ludicrous it is. He pointed out that if there is an all powerful god, then he is Evil as he has the power to stop the suffering of the children and their families but doesn't or he is a benevolent god who would like to stop the suffering but can't. There's also the fact that Billions of people are destined to go to hell just because they have the wrong religious education. If a god cared enough about these people, why would they be damned to spend an eternity in hell through no fault of their own. Like an eternity in the worst place imaginable, being tortured for the crime of being unaware of the real religion. That is more fecked up than any justice system on earth.

3) I know in the catholic school I went to, as long as you confessed and truly meant it and did your penance, you were absolved of your sins. If they were teaching Christianity properly then yes, a child rapist and murderer would get into heaven, if he was truly sorry for his sins, before an Indian child who happened to have never heard of Jesus.

4) Not really sure of your point, so I won't address it.

5) In no other part of life is faith a good thing. Believing something in the absence of evidence or worse, contrary to evidence is not a trait we should be promoting.

1. Not every Christian used the bible to justify slavery (abolitionist movement) and not every Christian believes homosexuality is wrong but with that said in 50 years time there will still be Christians who don't accept homosexuality in the same way that racism still exists.

2. Think I didn't explain my point well. If God is all powerful then why only blame him for all the evil and suffering in the world but give him no credit for the good and happiness in the world? If your saying he's not responsible for the good things that happen then why is he responsible for the evil?

3. Fair enough, I was taught that simply confessing wasn't enough, one must confess and then make a conscious effort to change by doing good deads.

4. Harris said the original writers of the bible used to bury children in the foundations of their houses. All I'm saying is that he made an irrelevant point as Christianity isn't about those people and their habits but a belief in god.

5. Fair enough

 

[bishblaize]

It isn't about free will except the free will of an all powerful all knowing god who created all life on earth.

So the bubonic plague god created that and the rats that carried it and the flea which which passed it onto humans. It killed between 30% and 60% of all humans in Europe. How does that enhance free will?

By the way all powerful means just that so why make the world with suffering in order to have free will when you can make a world without suffering and keep free will if you are an all powerful god that is.

If the Christian God does exist, then any argument one makes that claims to disprove his existence must necessarily have points that are wrong.

If on the other hand God does not exist, claims about what he would or wouldn't do in a given situation are unprovable and can't be used in the argument. It's like arguing that there's no magic invisible tiger in my kitchen because he's drinking coffee, and magic invisible tigers don't drink coffee.

Either way it's impossible to use actions attributed to God to disprove his existence.

Christians and co use the first argument. Any reasonable sounding argument hits the "God is mysterious" wall. Since they know God exists any argument saying otherwise must contain a false assumption. Anything that can't be explained is a misunderstanding on our part (so they believe). There's no way for us to prove otherwise since its impossible to prove what a nonexistent entity would or would not do. So it won't persuade them.

The epicurean paradox for me hits the second problem. It makes assumptions about the nature of God and says that since those assumptions are true God therefore doesn't exist. "God would make earth like heaven and since earth isn't like heaven he can't exist" for example. However assumptions about what God would or wouldn't do are unprovable either way. Since one of the core assumptions is not provable it can't be used as any sort of convincing argument.

For the epicurean case to work one would have to show categorically what God would do in a given situation. But how can that ever be demonstrated? Even a Christian would find that hard to do and they at least believe be exists.

The most the paradox can show is that the typical Christian's beliefs are inconsistent and incomplete. But that doesn't get us far.

That's not a rebuttal (not surprising since no-one has managed to do it in 2000 years, even Plantinga, who invented modal logic specifically to do so).

Within its own context. But what does that mean when it's logic is based on an unproven assumption of a gods actions? It certainly can't be used as a theological argument.

 

[peterstorey]

Within its own context. But what does that mean when it's logic is based on an unproven assumption of a gods actions? It certainly can't be used as a theological argument.

'Its own context' is the real world and formal logic, what more do you want?

 

[bishblaize]

'Its own context' is the real world and formal logic, what more do you want?

It's like saying if we agree a + b = c and we know a=1 and b=2 then we can know c=3.

But if someone points out that we cant know for sure that b=2 then it can't be used to find c with any certainty.

The logic of a + b = c may be sound and if a and b are known the conclusion for c may be sound, which is my point about its own context.

But if b is not known it's no longer sound. At the very least our certainty of c is nothing more than a function of our certainly of b.

Either way, to translate that argument from an interesting logic argument to a real world conclusion able to convince theists needs every point in the chain to be mutually agreed.

 

[peterstorey]

It's like saying if we agree a + b = c and we know a=1 and b=2 then we can know c=3.

But if someone points out that we cant know for sure that b=2 then it can't be used to find c with any certainty.

The logic of a + b = c may be sound and if a and b are known the conclusion for c may be sound, which is my point about its own context.

But if b is not known it's no longer sound. At the very least our certainty of c is nothing more than a function of our certainly of b.

Either way, to translate that argument from an interesting logic argument to a real world conclusion able to convince theists needs every point in the chain to be mutually agreed.

The premises are defined by the theists, the real world existence of evil is not in dispute. The logic is inescapable.

 

[RexHamilton]

1. Not every Christian used the bible to justify slavery (abolitionist movement) and not every Christian believes homosexuality is wrong but with that said in 50 years time there will still be Christians who don't accept homosexuality in the same way that racism still exists.

2. Think I didn't explain my point well. If God is all powerful then why only blame him for all the evil and suffering in the world but give him no credit for the good and happiness in the world? If your saying he's not responsible for the good things that happen then why is he responsible for the evil?

3. Fair enough, I was taught that simply confessing wasn't enough, one must confess and then make a conscious effort to change by doing good deads.

4. Harris said the original writers of the bible used to bury children in the foundations of their houses. All I'm saying is that he made an irrelevant point as Christianity isn't about those people and their habits but a belief in god.

5. Fair enough

1) Correct. Not every Christian used the bible to justify slavery but a sizeable amount did where as now, they are in a tiny minority. Similarly the amount of people using the bible to justify hate against homosexuals is reducing year on year and will continue to do so. I don't think we're really disagreeing on this one to be honest. My point is just that as things become more socially acceptable in regular life, the church and members of it become more accepting of it partly because they may realise they were wrong and partly maybe so the church won't seem archaic and out of touch.

2.) We may both be missing each other's point here. My point is I don't give god credit for all the good in the world because I don't believe in any god. Similarly I am not blaming him, nor his Harris for all the children dying as I and he don't believe in any god. What we are saying is that if there is a god, he clearly either doesn't care or has no power to do anything about it, therefore isn't the all powerful, benevolent god we are told about. Of course if you blame god for all the bad in the world then you could also credit him with the good.

3) I'm no expert, just what I took from religion classes, so I do stand to be corrected.

4) Fair enough. But you must agree that to follow Christianity properly you are required to live your life with the same moral compass as those who wrote it.

 

[Silva]

Silly argument with an obvious flaw in it.

Does the fact that I'm prepared to let my two year old run around the garden, fall over and graze his knee from time to time make me 'malevolent'? Or does it mean I know that an important part of growing up is learning to deal with challenges and difficulties?

If you can convince me that free will (in the theological sense) is a bad thing then the paradox has merit. Otherwise not.

I dont even believe in God and I don't find this meritous.

What lesson would a child learn by letting it die of cancer?

We don't have free will, either.

 

[Raoul]

Religion will organically go away once people, especially the world's poor, have greater access to technology, information, and economic improvement.

 

[peterstorey]

Religion will organically go away once people, especially the world's poor, have greater access to technology, information, and economic improvement.

Like in the US over the last 50 years?

 

[Raoul]

Like in the US over the last 50 years?

Its definitely going away in the US - today compared to as recently as 20-30 years ago. Its the rest of the world thats lagging.

 

[bishblaize]

The premises are defined by the theists, the real world existence of evil is not in dispute. The logic is inescapable.

So, theists believe that the existence of evil and free will proves that God is malevolent?

Right. Good luck arguing that.

 

[peterstorey]

Its definitely going away in the US - today compared to as recently as 20-30 years ago. Its the rest of the world thats lagging.

Really I was surprised how religious the US was when I first went in the 80s, didn't seem that different last year (tho' I was in the bible belt and got abused in the supermarket for trying to buy liquor on a Sunday).

 

[peterstorey]

So, theists believe that the existence of evil and free will proves that God is malevolent?

Right. Good luck arguing that.

Kinnell. The premises are the existence of the all-singing, all-dancing god, the evidence is the reality of evil - apply logic and voila...

 

[Raoul]

Really I was surprised how religious the US was when I first went in the 80s, didn't seem tat different last year (tho' I was in the bible belt and got abused in the supermarket for trying to buy liquor on a Sunday).

I emigrated to the US in 1983, straight into the Alabama bible belt. It was quite an experience. The county i moved to had been "dry" (no alcohol sales) since the 1920s. It was illegal in neighboring counties where it was for sale, to call their shops "liquor stores" - they had to be called "package stores" instead, and it was illegal to have a package store within a certain distance from a church, which at the time were seemingly on every corner. Luckily the days of televangelists have dissipated to almost nothing now.

 

[bishblaize]

Kinnell. The premises are the existence of the all-singing, all-dancing god, the evidence is the reality of evil - apply logic and voila...

Sorry Pete, but theists are well aware of the existence of evil and seemingly find it compatible with their beliefs.

If the only way the argument sticks is by having an all singing all dancing happy God that wouldn't let so much as a dark cloud enter the life of any human, then it's no surprise that others find it less than the categorical proof you find it.

 

[peterstorey]

Sorry Pete, but theists are well aware of the existence of evil and seemingly find it compatible with their beliefs.

If the only way the argument sticks is by having an all singing all dancing happy God that wouldn't let so much as a dark cloud enter the life of any human, then it's no surprise that others find it less than the categorical proof you find it.

We're not talking about 'dark clouds', we're talking mass slaughter. The theists are just being illogical (logic is not your strong suit either is it?).

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

If the Christian God does exist, then any argument one makes that claims to disprove his existence must necessarily have points that are wrong.

If on the other hand God does not exist, claims about what he would or wouldn't do in a given situation are unprovable and can't be used in the argument. It's like arguing that there's no magic invisible tiger in my kitchen because he's drinking coffee, and magic invisible tigers don't drink coffee.

Either way it's impossible to use actions attributed to God to disprove his existence.

Christians and co use the first argument. Any reasonable sounding argument hits the "God is mysterious" wall. Since they know God exists any argument saying otherwise must contain a false assumption. Anything that can't be explained is a misunderstanding on our part (so they believe). There's no way for us to prove otherwise since its impossible to prove what a nonexistent entity would or would not do. So it won't persuade them.

The epicurean paradox for me hits the second problem. It makes assumptions about the nature of God and says that since those assumptions are true God therefore doesn't exist. "God would make earth like heaven and since earth isn't like heaven he can't exist" for example. However assumptions about what God would or wouldn't do are unprovable either way. Since one of the core assumptions is not provable it can't be used as any sort of convincing argument.

For the epicurean case to work one would have to show categorically what God would do in a given situation. But how can that ever be demonstrated? Even a Christian would find that hard to do and they at least believe be exists.

The most the paradox can show is that the typical Christian's beliefs are inconsistent and incomplete. But that doesn't get us far.



Within its own context. But what does that mean when it's logic is based on an unproven assumption of a gods actions? It certainly can't be used as a theological argument.

I'm not trying to persuade them.

Religions make claims about their gods. Those claims and religions are man made and fallible so they can be proved false logically.

If Christians said for example that god had only so much power and had to work within the rules of deities a bit like the god sim games then fair enough but they don't. They claim him all powerful and benevolent and given the state of the world that can certainly be shown to be incorrect.

 

[JSArsenal]

1) Correct. Not every Christian used the bible to justify slavery but a sizeable amount did where as now, they are in a tiny minority. Similarly the amount of people using the bible to justify hate against homosexuals is reducing year on year and will continue to do so. I don't think we're really disagreeing on this one to be honest. My point is just that as things become more socially acceptable in regular life, the church and members of it become more accepting of it partly because they may realise they were wrong and partly maybe so the church won't seem archaic and out of touch.

2.) We may both be missing each other's point here. My point is I don't give god credit for all the good in the world because I don't believe in any god. Similarly I am not blaming him, nor his Harris for all the children dying as I and he don't believe in any god. What we are saying is that if there is a god, he clearly either doesn't care or has no power to do anything about it, therefore isn't the all powerful, benevolent god we are told about. Of course if you blame god for all the bad in the world then you could also credit him with the good.

3) I'm no expert, just what I took from religion classes, so I do stand to be corrected.

4) Fair enough. But you must agree that to follow Christianity properly you are required to live your life with the same moral compass as those who wrote it.

1. Fair enough, one can't stick rigidly to moral values from a book that was written centuries ago. But,sadly, at the same time I believe that some people would still be homophobic with or without religion, they just use religion to justify their views.

2. Fair enough I understand the point. Whenever the question comes of if god is all powerful then why doesn't he do something about all of the suffering is an age old question that I don't have a real answer for. I don't think the options are that black and white though. Perhaps he does care and is all powerful but simply chooses not to get involved. Why? I don't have the answer

3. Perhaps we just had different religion classes.

4. No, if one wants to follow Christianity than the simple requirement is to live your life with the same moral compass as is dictated in the bible itself, the bits about peace, love etc etc and not the bad bits in the Old testament. Once again I know this point may generate ridicule but it is what it is, as times change and moral values change then not everything in the bible can be taken literally. Follow the message but not the messengers.

(Note all of this is just what I remember from my religion classes at school)

 

[RexHamilton]

1. Fair enough, one can't stick rigidly to moral values from a book that was written centuries ago. But,sadly, at the same time I believe that some people would still be homophobic with or without religion, they just use religion to justify their views.

2. Fair enough I understand the point. Whenever the question comes of if god is all powerful then why doesn't he do something about all of the suffering is an age old question that I don't have a real answer for. I don't think the options are that black and white though. Perhaps he does care and is all powerful but simply chooses not to get involved. Why? I don't have the answer

3. Perhaps we just had different religion classes.

4. No, if one wants to follow Christianity than the simple requirement is to live your life with the same moral compass as is dictated in the bible itself, the bits about peace, love etc etc and not the bad bits in the Old testament. Once again I know this point may generate ridicule but it is what it is, as times change and moral values change then not everything in the bible can be taken literally. Follow the message but not the messengers.

(Note all of this is just what I remember from my religion classes at school)

I have to take issue with this. The bible is supposedly the word of god. It was written by men but it's god's word through them, right? So who are you to pick and choose which bits to follow and which bits to ignore. It's linked to the first point. As times change christians choose which parts are no longer socially acceptable and say that they are not meant to be taken literally. That's a big assumption to make. Either it's all the word of god or none of it is. Instead less and less is becoming the literal word of god and meant as a parable or story. Christianity is altering itself constantly in an effort to stay relevant and alive.

All the people who went to hell for eating meat on Fridays must feel pretty aggrieved that times have changed and it's now OK and that wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Winrar]

Most Christians accept that not everything in the bible can be taken literally and faith in God doesn't necessarily have to equate to taking everything in the bible to heart.

That the Bible can be taken "out of context" and twisted by so many different people in so many different contexts, as shown by large number of different types of Christianity (for example Protestants, Baptists, Catholics...), only serves to highlight the flaw of the Bible in the first place IMO.

He makes good points but he asks questions that no one has the answer to and it all boils down to "God doesn't exist because bad stuff happens". So if children suffering and other bad things are evidence that god doesn't exist, does that mean that the millions of happy children out there are evidence that he does exist?

He's trying to make the argument against the "God is benevolent, kind, and just" line that Christians believe. How can God be benevolent, kind, and just when he allows people by the millions on Earth to suffer?

No real proof that a last minute confession would actually stop a death row inmate from going to hell.

If you have been baptized previously and believe in God, and in your death row repent and confess your sins, you will go to heaven. Apparently. (Not my words)

http://www.seektheoldpaths.com/deathbed.htm

Christianity also isn't about belief in the people that wrote the bible or supporting what they did to their kids.

I'm not sure if I follow what you're trying to say here.

As for the little evidence and miracles part, well I suppose that's the whole point of religion, having faith.

Blind faith shouldn't be promoted ahead of logical thinking.

 

[JSArsenal]

I have to take issue with this. The bible is supposedly the word of god. It was written by men but it's god's word through them, right? So who are you to pick and choose which bits to follow and which bits to ignore. It's linked to the first point. As times change christians choose which parts are no longer socially acceptable and say that they are not meant to be taken literally. That's a big assumption to make. Either it's all the word of god or none of it is. Instead less and less is becoming the literal word of god and meant as a parable or story. Christianity is altering itself constantly in an effort to stay relevant and alive.

All the people who went to hell for eating meat on Fridays must feel pretty aggrieved that times have changed and it's now OK and that wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Bible may be the word of god but it was still written by man, thousands of years after those events actually happened and those stories were passed down by word of mouth, so its not an infallible text and contains several flaws. On the one hand Christians are blasted for taking the bible too literally but when they decide not to do that but simply take the bible's message as a whole then its still a problem? I'll be the first to hold my hands up and say that some of those stories in the bible don't make any logical sense, one example being of a man who supposedly survived in the belly of a whale for a few days.

Perhaps Christianity is being hypocritical, one minute saying this applies and the next minute it doesn't but Christianity is moving away from a literal word for word adoption of whats in the bible to a general message of what it represents in an effort to become more tolerant and accepting and in the grand scheme of things, isn't that a good thing?

@Winrar, see my last post (before this one for a better explanation on my 4th point). Here it is "Harris said the original writers of the bible used to bury children in the foundations of their houses. All I'm saying is that he made an irrelevant point as Christianity isn't about those people and their habits but a belief in god."

Humans are free to interpret anything as they see fit.

Depends on what you believe, if you believe that suffering is an example of god not being benevolent and kind then the reverse. Ultimately on both sides its circular reasoning. Why doesn't god exist/ isn't benevolent? Because he allows people to suffer. Why does he allow people to suffer? Because he doesn't exist/isn't benevolent. Love and kindess in the world is proof that god exists. God exists because there is love and kindness in the world. There is no proof on other side, just a premise and a conclusion.

Truth on blind faith but that is the basis of religion.

 

[Raoul]

Maher continues to milk the Islam thing....

 

[Raoul]

I remember when his show used to be about vaguely bad comedy

 

[PedroMendez]

This women is really the pinnacle of stupidity. If she wouldnt look hot I wouldnt have watched this till the end.

 

[Raoul]

This women is really the pinnacle of stupidity. If she wouldnt look hot I wouldnt have watched this till the end.

What's so stupid about her ?

 

[PedroMendez]

What's so stupid about her ?

is this a serious question?

 

[JohnDoe]

My god she's sanctimonious. But it's cute how she's so riled up.

 

[Raoul]

is this a serious question?

Its actually a test to see if you're capable of articulating why she's stupid.

 

[Winrar]

@Winrar, see my last post (before this one for a better explanation on my 4th point). Here it is "Harris said the original writers of the bible used to bury children in the foundations of their houses. All I'm saying is that he made an irrelevant point as Christianity isn't about those people and their habits but a belief in god."

Can't argue against that, tbf.

Humans are free to interpret anything as they see fit.

It doesn't mean that Bible is a credible source of information.

Depends on what you believe, if you believe that suffering is an example of god not being benevolent and kind then the reverse. Ultimately on both sides its circular reasoning. Why doesn't god exist/ isn't benevolent? Because he allows people to suffer. Why does he allow people to suffer? Because he doesn't exist/isn't benevolent. Love and kindess in the world is proof that god exists. God exists because there is love and kindness in the world. There is no proof on other side, just a premise and a conclusion.

When Christians say "God is good," It's assumed that God is good to everyone because that's what it says in the Bible.

"The Lord is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works." (Psalm 145:17)

Truth on blind faith but that is the basis of religion.

And that's why religion is flawed, because truth doesn't come from blind faith.

 

[PedroMendez]

Its actually a test to see if you're capable of articulating why she's stupid.

she makes maher look okay.

 

[Raoul]

she makes maher look okay.

That's not very easy so fair enough. What did she say that was wrong though ? Maher seemed annoyed that she was going on the attack about his Berkeley appearance.

 

[JohnDoe]

Well she basically compared him to an anti-semite, which is ridiculous, so I kind of understand Maher being annoyed at that.

She makes a valid point though, that this isn't really about free speech. Maher has a right to his opinion like everybody else, but he doesn't necessarily have the right to the platform of the Berkeley commencement speaker, who would be well within their right in deciding not to have him. That being said I don't think Maher has said anything remotely bad enough to warrant exclusion from Berkeley, and it's nice that they're standing behind him.

 

[Raoul]

Her views seem to be in line with Aslan's, although she somehow comes across as more genuine in her frustration, whereas Aslan comes across like an insecure muppet who feels the need to remind everyone every 2 minutes that he's a PhD and a religious scholar, therefore his views are more valid than yours. At least she has a bit of experience in the region and makes a decent point about generalizations, which obviously made Maher a bit uncomfortable.

 

[JohnDoe]

Yes, she certainly does come across as sincere, and I don't doubt her heart's in the right place. But she doesn't seem like a very sophisticated thinker. So same as Affleck, basically, where formulating a coherent argument is substituted with emotional knee-jerk responses.

And Maher is not a great thinker on this issue either, so it's a very messy back and forth.