101. Comment #35558 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 3:42 pm

William: Your post @88 betrays your condecension @85. This is your lot. I share it with you.

Other Comments by Roll

102. Comment #35560 by alovrin on April 27, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Oh Goody, its gang up on William time.
Now William, I didnt mean to hurt your feelings by using the word cretin. Just in explanation of my use of the word. It was made in reference to you saying BM didnt have a soul. Which is kind of a ridiculous thing to say, don't you agree?

What is a soul William?
The use of this word brings with it all manner of baggage,and your glib use of it doesnt convey any of the intended meaning, you wished to be read into it by us your fellow readers and scribblers.

If you could just extrapolate on what the connection, in your mind, is between BM and the lack of this "soul" is.
Or, in your opinion, is he just a bad comedian and this is your way of saying so.
Or was it because he had sex with Anne Coulter and during this connection he was separated from said "soul", and is now just another souless ghoul strutting the stage of life?

Other Comments by alovrin

103. Comment #35568 by William on April 27, 2007 at 3:59 pm

I would even argue that people like Reza Aslan and Andrew Sullivan are allies in some respects. No?

I agree with you there. I have no problem with the likes of Aslan or Sullivan, other than that I don't share their faith. Chris Hedges, for example, is a Christian and he's one of the best weapons against the Religious Right that we've got.

I reject this notion that just because someone is an atheist I should automatically accept him as my ally. It doesn't work like that. I'd take a Christian or a Muslim who is intelligent, informed, witty, etc. over a glib, obnoxious atheist like Maher any day.

It's too simplistic to reduce everything to atheists on one side and non-atheists on the other, and anyone who's on your side gets your support.

Other Comments by William

104. Comment #35573 by William on April 27, 2007 at 4:11 pm

What is a soul William?
The use of this word brings with it all manner of baggage,and your glib use of it doesnt convey any of the intended meaning, you wished to be read into it by us your fellow readers and scribblers.

The "soul" comment was an admittedly feeble attempt at a joke. I assumed that, on a Richard Dawkins website, it would be taken for granted that I don't believe in the religious concept of a soul, and that I was using the term in a facetious manner. Do I have to explain that I don't believe in Succubi either?

Or was it because he had sex with Anne Coulter and during this connection he was separated from said "soul", and is now just another souless ghoul strutting the stage of life?

The implication was that Anne Coulter was a succubus and she had stolen Maher's soul. As I said, it was supposed to be a joke. I don't say it was a good one, but I would have thought it was at least obvious.

You see, I'm as bad a comedian as Bill Maher. I should get my own show.

Other Comments by William

105. Comment #35575 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 4:13 pm

"I'd take a Christian or a Muslim who is intelligent, informed, witty, etc. over a glib, obnoxious atheist like Maher any day."

I think what it takes to have a multi-million audience on the telly in the US, you have to be glib, and a tad self assured. Whether you call this obnoxious or not is surely subjective.

I would also have along people of any faith that want to tackle the dangerous aspects of the religious holding political power. Including those that are glib and obnoxious (though I tend to disagree with your example here).

Isn't this what we have been asking the soft-religious and the agnostics to do all along? Stop protecting the hardline right-wing dogmas and their politician puppets?

Other Comments by Roll

106. Comment #35578 by William on April 27, 2007 at 4:17 pm

I think what it takes to have a multi-million audience on the telly in the US

Where is this "millions of viewers" stuff coming from? Bill Maher has never attracted that large of an audience.

Other Comments by William

107. Comment #35583 by Bonzai on April 27, 2007 at 4:47 pm

William wrote,

"I reject this notion that just because someone is an atheist I should automatically accept him as my ally. It doesn't work like that. I'd take a Christian or a Muslim who is intelligent, informed, witty, etc. over a glib, obnoxious atheist like Maher any day.

It's too simplistic to reduce everything to atheists on one side and non-atheists on the other, and anyone who's on your side gets your support."

Well put. Exactly what I think.

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

Other Comments by Bonzai

108. Comment #35585 by drbreakfast on April 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I enjoy Maher's show and while I don't agree with him on everything and I find his overall perspective as articulated on religion/god to be somewhat wishy-washy, the fact that he is a popular celebrity in the U.S. who has enough balls to be hostile to all religious beliefs is a very good thing.

Most the Hollywood set give uncritical lip service to religion. Just watch the Oscars or any other Hollywood award show and "God" drips from the lips many of these people. I find it encouraging that many people in his audience will cheer when he makes an anti-religious remark. I think that RD would be a great guest on Maher's show, giving him and the causes of science and reason a wider audience.

Other Comments by drbreakfast

109. Comment #35586 by roach on April 27, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Well for the record (as if there is one) I have many issues with Reza Aslan and Andrew Sullivan other than their faith. But whatever. So what if Maher is glib and obnoxious? He's right about religion. This thread is pretty crappy.

Other Comments by roach

110. Comment #35588 by Bonzai on April 27, 2007 at 5:27 pm

If Maher cannot make an intelligent case for atheism or whatever that he tries to promote he should just shut up and stick to his unfunny sideshow.

You cannot get a worst advertisment for atheism by having an obnoxious buffoon like Maher making a fool of himself on national TV. His arguments are simplistic and juivinile. In the clip he insisted that the Christian woman saw him as a lesser human because he was not a Christian, that was presumptious and he came across sounding like a spoilt brat. All that little clip conveys is that Mr. Maher's ego got hurt, big deal. Any believer with some sophistication would be able to skewer him with ease. If he is really as great as some of you make him out to be you should really be worrying about the declining IQ of the American TV viewers.

I think most Christians would be embarassed to have the God hates fags guy as the posterboy for Christianity, for the same reason I am not enthusiastic in seeing Maher supposedly speaking for me.

Other Comments by Bonzai

111. Comment #35589 by alovrin on April 27, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I'm as bad a comedian as Bill Maher. I should get my own show.

Ok got it, so then maybe your skills as a critic are as lousy as your comedic skill? (This is a rhetorical question no need to answer.)
In which case dont give up your day job. I mean that in a nice way.
Unless you are dissatisfied and are looking for a career change, then I would suggest crossing those two off your list.
So did you get a chance to look at Bill Moyers doco? (This question is not rhetorical.)

Other Comments by alovrin

112. Comment #35591 by CDG on April 27, 2007 at 6:17 pm

I am willing to bet that alot of the people bashing Maher right now are going to have to keep a low profile after his documentary dismantling religion comes out. Maher will become part of a tandem with Hitchens over the next year that takes on religion from a political and entertainment standpoint, leaving Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and others to handle it from the science and philosophical standpoint.

Holy shit. Our message machine may actually be evolving in front of our eyes.

Other Comments by CDG

113. Comment #35592 by catchy_nick on April 27, 2007 at 6:53 pm

(William)
I just wanted to add Sagan to that list.

Other Comments by catchy_nick

114. Comment #35600 by ChippySwans on April 27, 2007 at 7:35 pm

"William, are you really calling out grammatical errors in other peoples posts in an attempt to bolster your position. Lame to say the least.

Folks, we may have an elitist on our hands." -CDG

Just because William is not an extreme left-wing liberal (or at least I dont think he is) like most on this board doesn't make him an elitist. But, by treating a person that doesn't agree with you like many on this board have does make one an elitist.

Can't you all see that by having left-wing nutjobs like Maher pushing atheism, it turns off the message to moderates in this world. I am an athiest and a conservative Republican but I won't tell anyone outside of this forum because I don't want to be viewed in a similar manner to Maher or 99% of the Chomsky loving fools here. I generally don't care what people think of me but the way this whole thing is run disgusts me. And I will not put myself in a position to be viewed in that light (and the cause of people viewing athiests of a certain light is athiests fault by how they behave). The athiests that are already of this extreme left ilk are already out. It's the moderate people that we need to get over. Maher and others that put off a similar tone do atheism no good at all.

Other Comments by ChippySwans

115. Comment #35601 by Bonzai on April 27, 2007 at 7:40 pm

I don't consider Maher "left wing", perhaps he is a flaming leftist only in the U.S. which is so far gone to the right comparing with most other developed countries that it is almost comical. I just find him to be a shallow, obnoxious attention grabber. I wouldn't want him to sell anything that has any intellectual content.

Other Comments by Bonzai

116. Comment #35606 by CDG on April 27, 2007 at 8:03 pm

ChippySwans: I respectfully disagree with your last post. Bill Maher no more reflects on you personally due to your Atheism than does say David Duke because of your republicanism. Or Pat Robertson because of your Conservatism.

You say "I will not put myself in a position to be viewed in that light". I hate to break it to you but the only way you are being viewed in your life is by how you live it. I don't treat my beloved Christian friends any differently because they worship the identical faith of Ted Haggard. They earned their stripes, good and bad, all by themselves.

I wear my Atheism badge proudly. I am on the right side of the debate. It feels good and I do not shirk away from the responsibilities that come with it. Bill Maher does not reflect on me one bit.

By the way. My name is Chris Govrik. I live in St. Paul MN. I am 38 years old. And everyone who knows me knows I am an Atheist. They still like me.

Other Comments by CDG

117. Comment #35608 by MrEmpirical on April 27, 2007 at 8:32 pm

William,

I have no doubt that there is a correlation between grammatical prowess and being correct in online discussions. But to make a sweeping negative statement about Bill Maher's supporters on the basis of their grammar is fallacious to say the least.

It should go without saying that a comment should be judged by its content, rather than its presentation. If I say "the eArth; is round", you can no doubt understand that I am claiming that the earth is round, and this claim is no less true for being presented in an ungrammatical way. I know it's tempting to criticise the ways in which your opponents present their claims, but you ought to evaluate these claims on the basis of their content. Especially in an online forum. It is practically a given that internet-based discussions will contain a large number of grammatical and spelling errors. Even the most intelligent people are often relaxed about their grammar when it comes to internet discussions. After all, this isn't a formal academic debate!

You may have noticed that I summarised the 13 main points that Maher made during his interview, i.e. the content of his claims. As far as I can see, you have not responded to these claims. You have merely attacked Maher's character and the character of his supporters. I consider this sort of behaviour to be unreasonable and unsuitable for this website.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

118. Comment #35612 by William on April 27, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Re: Comment #35608 by MrEmpirical

Thanks for the lecture!

If I say "the eArth; is round", you can no doubt understand that I am claiming that the earth is round,

Yes, but would you appreciate having to read something written in that manner?

It is practically a given that internet-based discussions will contain a large number of grammatical and spelling errors.

I know, and it annoys me to no end!

You may have noticed that I summarised the 13 main points that Maher made during his interview, i.e. the content of his claims. As far as I can see, you have not responded to these claims.

But that's not the issue. I don't have a problem with his stance on religion. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with all 13 points.

You have merely attacked Maher's character and the character of his supporters.

Maher's character was the subject of the discussion. And I only attacked his supporters (very mildly, I might add) after they attacked me. Since you've taken it upon yourself to be the moderator here, why don't you talk to them about their childish name-calling?

Other Comments by William

119. Comment #35613 by IPV4 on April 27, 2007 at 9:30 pm

For those who are Ragging on Bill Maher, well I could only say this is that he is the only one on national american Tv/cable that has the balls to batch religion and he does so almost on a weekly basis.

Other Comments by IPV4

120. Comment #35627 by hopeful on April 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

ChippySwans said "Maher is a complete loser....grrr I can't stand him. He bring no credibility to us."

There is something disturbing about the last sentence. Who is "us" and why is Bill Maher not one of you?

I don't care whether people think Bill Maher is a funny comedian or not, and I don't care what he appeared to believe in the past, it is what he is doing now that counts.

I watched both clips and I thought he handled the topic very well and I thought he was spot on with everything he said.

Other Comments by hopeful

121. Comment #35649 by Rhys on April 28, 2007 at 5:35 am

Wow. I'm surprised there is so much hostility towards Bill Maher. Everyone here seems to be under the opinion that he is some Jay Leno or David Letterman who runs an entertainment talk show. Real Time is by far the smartest comedy talk show on TV and Bill Maher is easily one of the smartest hosts of any show on TV.

Also anyone trying to make the case that Bill is some Johnny-come-lately atheist who is trying to ride the recent success of Dawkins and Harris. For those of you who think this I would recomend watching his 2000 standup show 'Be More Cynical' or his 2003 show 'Victory Begins at Home' where he spends a good 20 minutes or so ripping Islam to shreds. And remember this was in the few years after 9/11 when everyone had to pretend that Islam was a religion of peace that had a few bad apples.

My guess is most of the people critical of Bill here haven't seen anything outside of the 2 clips above. Possibly not even them. I have also noticed that on a few recent episodes of Real Time, bill has referenced and stuck up for Dawkins, Harris and Dennet in the face of a number of guests. I always wondered why he never had any of them on I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins himself appeared in the documentary. Whatever happens I am looking forward to it.

The one thing I do have against Maher's show is his audience who sound like they have been bussed in from The Jerry Springer Show and spend way to much time applauding stupid shit. Which is why it was so funny when Christopher Hitchens gave them the finger and told them to fuck off.

Other Comments by Rhys

122. Comment #35658 by Circumspect on April 28, 2007 at 6:25 am

Kind-of astonishing to hear the petty complaints. I'm grateful for anyone with public visibility who speaks up against religious nonsense -- and if that person is rich and well-connected, all the better. We need all the Bill Mahers we can get.

Other Comments by Circumspect

123. Comment #35665 by MrEmpirical on April 28, 2007 at 6:49 am

Re: Comment #35612 by William

Thanks for the lecture!

You're welcome. However, I would appreciate it if in the future you could save me the trouble of having to lecture you. Leave out the fallacious sweeping statements and we'll both have an easier time of it.

Yes, but would you appreciate having to read something written in that manner?

No. But nor would I draw sweeping generalisations on the basis of such writings. I concentrate more on the content of comments, rather than on their delivery.

I know, and it annoys me to no end!

You shouldn't allow your annoyance to unduely influence your comments. As I said, I know it's tempting to draw sweeping generalisations about other people, but content should be emphasised over delivery.

But that's not the issue. I don't have a problem with his stance on religion. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with all 13 points.

Perhaps it should be the issue. Rather than picking on the grammar of others, it might be a good idea to focus on the substance of their comments.

Maher's character was the subject of the discussion. And I only attacked his supporters (very mildly, I might add) after they attacked me.

In other words, you perpetuated the animosity. Well done.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

124. Comment #35684 by Bonzai on April 28, 2007 at 9:34 am

Comment #35649 by Rhys

>> Everyone here seems to be under the opinion that he is some Jay Leno or David Letterman who runs an entertainment talk show.<<

It may be shocking to you, but I hate those guys too. These late shows are real brain dead zones.

>>Bill Maher is easily one of the smartest hosts of any show on TV<<

The key words are "hosts on TV", being the smartest among a brain dead lot isn't really that great an achievement, is it? Actually I am not even so sure about it, just by watching a bit of the clip I think even a not so smart host like Scarborough had Maher by the balls. It isn't because Scarborough came up with any good argument, Maher just shot himself preemtively on the foot.

Maybe Bill Maher will do well debating these guys, it is about the right level for him.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,938,Two-idiots-get-a-forum,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

Other Comments by Bonzai

125. Comment #35693 by William on April 28, 2007 at 10:37 am

Rather than picking on the grammar of others, it might be a good idea to focus on the substance of their comments.

As far as I can tell, there was no real substance. Their whole argument consisted of "Hey I like Bill Maher, you guys raggin on him shut up"

And I only made one brief remark that was critical of their grammar. If you read that sentence again, you'll see that I threw out several adjectives, only two of which involved grammar. This, by the way, is a criticism that Richard Dawkins himself has applied. I direct you to this article:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml

where he writes: "...the Internet seethes with ill-spelled and ungrammatical viciousness."

I made no "sweeping generalizations" based on their poor writing. I specifically said it was merely "indicative."

However, I would appreciate it if in the future you could save me the trouble of having to lecture you.

Oh please, don't put yourself out for my sake. Honestly, I can do without your repetitive, self-righteous, beside-the-point admonishments.

Other Comments by William

126. Comment #35706 by CDG on April 28, 2007 at 12:42 pm

William said "far as I can tell, there was no real substance" to our comments.

125 posts and nothing substantive? Its confirmed. We do have an elitist.

Other Comments by CDG

127. Comment #35714 by William on April 28, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Well, I defy anyone to find anything substantive in your posts, CDG.

Your only argument seems to be that Maher is a very public "fellow atheist" who helps to get the message across. Therefore, we shouldn't criticize him. To do so is to risk being considered a "whiner."

I find your reasoning uncompelling, to say the least.

Other Comments by William

128. Comment #35719 by pissinintothewind on April 28, 2007 at 2:19 pm

I`ve just watched THE WAY OF THE MASTER part 3 on youtube, one of the guys says "If you speak to someones conscience and circumnavigate the intellect the subject (evolution) dos`nt come up." If thats the level of debate in some sections of society in the USA you need people like Bill Maher. I will say no more except "GIVE IT A REST" its getting tedious.

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

129. Comment #35720 by CDG on April 28, 2007 at 2:26 pm

William,

The subject matter in general is rather a lightweight topic. I am not sure what level of substance you were expecting. Its one thing to say the subject matter is not substantive, but unfair to call out the comments as being so, when they revolve around an insignificant subject matter to begin with.

I was glad to see most on this thread like Bill Maher and I hope he turns you and the few others he alienated. I think his upcoming Documentary may do just that...

Chris

Other Comments by CDG

130. Comment #35721 by William on April 28, 2007 at 2:46 pm

I am not sure what level of substance you were expecting.

I didn't bring up the issue of "substance." That was MrEmpirical.

I was glad to see most on this thread like Bill Maher and I hope he turns you and the few others he alienated. I think his upcoming Documentary may do just that...

I don't plan on seeing his film, but I hope it does well. I hope it converts a lot of people to atheism. That doesn't mean I have to like him or his work.

Other Comments by William

131. Comment #35760 by MrEmpirical on April 28, 2007 at 7:47 pm

As far as I can tell, there was no real substance. Their whole argument consisted of "Hey I like Bill Maher, you guys raggin on him shut up"

Yes, and your argument was "You can tell a lot about Bill Maher from the type of audience he attracts". Can't you see how problematic this statement is? You criticise Maher on the basis of a handful of posts from a single internet discussion board, while ignoring the actual content of Maher's commentary.

And I only made one brief remark that was critical of their grammar. If you read that sentence again, you'll see that I threw out several adjectives, only two of which involved grammar.

Yes, I know. However, the correctness of spelling and grammar can be objectively assessed, and I didn't want to wade into the muddy waters of more subjective labels such as "boorish, vulgar, fawning" etc. I could have labelled your own posts as "sarcastic, condescending, superficial" but then you could have simply denied the validity of these subjective value judgements. I usually like to construct my arguments on more objective grounds. My focus on spelling and grammar allowed me to present a clear and objective example of how the truth-value of a message can be unrelated to its presentation (i.e. "the eArth; is round").

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

132. Comment #35807 by mathews on April 28, 2007 at 11:26 pm

He may not be the best proponent of atheism, but at least he shows a conservative American audience that atheists aren't just super smart people.
I personally find him funny too, although he wasn't particularly on form in these videos.

Other Comments by mathews

133. Comment #35934 by William on April 29, 2007 at 11:21 am

"You can tell a lot about Bill Maher from the type of audience he attracts". Can't you see how problematic this statement is?

Indeed, I can see how this statement is problematic. That's why I prefaced it with "I suppose." That's why I generalized it by writing "a fellow" rather than "Bill Maher" (as you've misquoted it). Clearly, my intention was to be sardonically suggestive, rather than conclusive.

You criticise Maher on the basis of a handful of posts from a single internet discussion board, while ignoring the actual content of Maher's commentary.

No, I criticized Maher based on past experience of watching his show. As I've said, I have no problem with his commentary on religion.

However, the correctness of spelling and grammar can be objectively assessed, and I didn't want to wade into the muddy waters of more subjective labels such as "boorish, vulgar, fawning" etc.

Ahh, so you took the easy route...

My focus on spelling and grammar allowed me to present a clear and objective example of how the truth-value of a message can be unrelated to its presentation (i.e. "the eArth; is round").

Like many of your points, this is irrelevant. I don't deny that spelling is unrelated to objective truth, but we're hardly dealing with objective truths here.

I usually like to construct my arguments on more objective grounds.

Well, bully for you. But that means this isn't the thread for you. This is totally subjective - either you like Maher or you don't. My only quarrel is with those who tell me I can't criticize him because he's a "fellow atheist."

Other Comments by William

134. Comment #36015 by MrEmpirical on April 29, 2007 at 11:06 pm

My only quarrel is with those who tell me I can't criticize him because he's a "fellow atheist."

I fully agree with such a criticism. But if that is your only quarrel, why didn't you simply stick to your guns and point out how objectively irrational it is to consider fellow atheists immune to criticism? Why did you feel the need to introduce (however sardonically) superficial and subjective criticisms of your opponents' styles? If you truly wanted to argue against those who would shield Maher from criticism, what was the point of labelling their posts as "vulgar, ill-spelled, ungrammatical, boorish, fawning" etc? Why not simply point out the illogicality of their arguments?

Do you really think that it is the "easy route" to refrain from taking cheap-shots at your opponents' delivery? I think it is all too tempting to take cheap-shots. It is much more difficult to stay calm and to have the maturity to tackle the rational basis of opposing claims.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

135. Comment #36137 by simplemind on April 30, 2007 at 9:15 am

Love Maher or hate him but i appreciate anybody willing to put them self in the front line of what is a very dangerous and hostile enviroment.The US bible bashing happy clappers are as vicious as they are ultra good.
Maher is not the most eloquent of speakers or the most well informed for a quick response but the more people that draw this debate to a more public arena the more we can hope to break the indoctrnation of the younger generations.

Other Comments by simplemind

136. Comment #36138 by simplemind on April 30, 2007 at 9:15 am

Love Maher or hate him but i appreciate anybody willing to put them self in the front line of what is a very dangerous and hostile enviroment.The US bible bashing happy clappers are as vicious as they are ultra good.
Maher is not the most eloquent of speakers or the most well informed for a quick response but the more people that draw this debate to a more public arena the more we can hope to break the indoctrnation of the younger generations.

Other Comments by simplemind

137. Comment #36149 by William on April 30, 2007 at 10:07 am

It is much more difficult to stay calm and to have the maturity to tackle the rational basis of opposing claims.

That horse you're on is awfully high, don't you think?

what was the point of labelling their posts as "vulgar, ill-spelled, ungrammatical, boorish, fawning" etc?

Because many of them were "vulgar, ill-spelled, ungrammatical and fawning." I see nothing wrong with pointing this out. They're perfectly tenable observations, not cheap-shots. (And I labeled Maher himself "boorish," not his supporters' posts. Please try to refrain from misquoting me.)

So far you've concentrated almost exclusively on one post (#35503) that I wrote in a fit of pique after I had been called a "whiner" by CDG, a "cretin" by alovrin, and an "idiot" by abaris. Do you wish to discuss anything else or are you just going to keep chiding me in the same patronizing manner that you've displayed heretofore? Because it's getting quite tiresome.

Other Comments by William

138. Comment #36164 by Rick777 on April 30, 2007 at 11:10 am

I think Bill Maher is hilarious myself . Though the term "Apatheist" isn`t what I would call a coherent position. One either accepts a proposition to be true or false. To say that there is no way of knowing either way is garden variety Agnosticism which is what Mahers` position clearly is.


Bill Mahers` stand on religion is mainly due to his opposition to its harmful effects in world politics and culture. He is very much like Sam Harris in that respect, though not as strong in his intellectual arguments against the God concept itself .

Other Comments by Rick777

139. Comment #36233 by tgrman on April 30, 2007 at 3:16 pm

To those folks who feel compelled to attack Bill Maher at a vicious, personal level I can only say: The TRUTH hurts doesn't it?

Other Comments by tgrman