A note about the 'Richard Dawkins Award' being presented to Bill Maher this weekend2. Comment #420123 by Sally Luxmoore on September 29, 2009 at 10:42 pm
3. Comment #420131 by TIKI AL on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Great news. 2 of my favorite people. I don't suppose this will be televised, right?4. Comment #420133 by mordacious1 on September 29, 2009 at 11:12 pm
5. Comment #420135 by HughCaldwell on September 29, 2009 at 11:17 pm
What's AAI? American Atheists something, I suppose.6. Comment #420137 by ContainsCaffeine on September 29, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Maher's attitudes towards alt-med deserve criticism, but there is a proper forum for that (Like the forum on this page for instance!). Disrupting or protesting this award is silly. The award is for his work in the atheist community, and for that it is deserved.7. Comment #420138 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2009 at 11:19 pm
8. Comment #420145 by Acumen on September 29, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I'm with Steve Zara, and would like to propose a comparison for your consideration:9. Comment #420147 by Mango on September 29, 2009 at 11:47 pm
10. Comment #420148 by scarecroe on September 29, 2009 at 11:47 pm
11. Comment #420149 by gf1 on September 29, 2009 at 11:48 pm
‘Religulous’ wasn't very good either. And it used the same tactics (fake movie name, misrepresenting it's makers intent, etc) that people here have complained about so loudly with 'Expelled'.12. Comment #420150 by Mango on September 29, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Acumen: Getting rid of religion won't do us any good if people just turn to homeopathy or quack treatments or astrology for comfort instead.
13. Comment #420151 by TIKI AL on September 29, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Hugh Caldwell @ 5:14. Comment #420152 by alaskansee on September 30, 2009 at 12:00 am
Zara,15. Comment #420153 by Duae Quartunciae on September 30, 2009 at 12:00 am
16. Comment #420155 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:02 am
increased scientific knowledge
17. Comment #420156 by alaskansee on September 30, 2009 at 12:03 am
Yes, yes but don't leave Steve.18. Comment #420159 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:09 am
19. Comment #420160 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 12:12 am
20. Comment #420162 by NewEnglandBob on September 30, 2009 at 12:15 am
21. Comment #420164 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:18 am
Edit: Do we have to be so desperately serious? I'm happy for a bit of light heartedness and comedy to get a regular look-in.
22. Comment #420165 by alaskansee on September 30, 2009 at 12:21 am
Steve23. Comment #420166 by mordacious1 on September 30, 2009 at 12:21 am
24. Comment #420167 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:24 am
25. Comment #420170 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 12:32 am
26. Comment #420173 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:36 am
27. Comment #420174 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 12:39 am
do you think it is appropriate for the finest living science writer and educator to have his name associated with Maher, who isn't even sure that vaccines work?
28. Comment #420175 by aratina on September 30, 2009 at 12:39 am
I won't call myself an atheist if Maher is going to be publicly identified as a celebrated example of what prominent atheists consider award-worthy.Oh come on. You've always known "atheist" had nothing to do with anything except no belief in a god. Why would you just now decide not to call yourself atheist over this flap when we've had countless prestigious atheists who were flat out bonkers for as far back as history has been recorded? If you really can't accept this award going to Maher, then don't join AAI (or cancel your membership if you have already joined), but don't act like being an atheist means you have to agree with AAI.
29. Comment #420177 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:42 am
Shouldn't it be upto the finest living science writer and educator to decide whether his name should be associated with Maher?
30. Comment #420179 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:43 am
31. Comment #420181 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 12:46 am
32. Comment #420182 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:48 am
Oh come on. You've always known "atheist" had nothing to do with anything except no belief in a god. Why would you just now decide not to call yourself atheist over this flap when we've had countless prestigious atheists who were flat out bonkers for as far back as history has been recorded?
33. Comment #420183 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 12:50 am
34. Comment #420185 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:51 am
It seems from what we've heard from Richard so far that he does not care what Maher's views on medicine are as far as this association of his name with the award goes. Obviously he is only considering Maher from the perspective of promoting atheism.
35. Comment #420186 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:54 am
We need some new word, I think. Pro-reasonists?
36. Comment #420187 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 12:54 am
Getting rid of religion won't do us any good if people just turn to homeopathy or quack treatments or astrology for comfort instead.
37. Comment #420189 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:58 am
38. Comment #420190 by Duae Quartunciae on September 30, 2009 at 12:58 am
39. Comment #420191 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 1:00 am
I'm happy if people give up religion for astrology before they arrive at reason. A lot less people will suffer.
40. Comment #420192 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 1:03 am
41. Comment #420193 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 1:03 am
42. Comment #420194 by jonny_eh on September 30, 2009 at 1:07 am
By Dawkins completely ignoring Maher's shameful promotion of the worst kind of pseudo-science, he is playing right into the hands of his opponents. People always say that Stalin was an atheist, and Dawkins responds along the lines that he was also a supporter of a dangerous ideology. The same should go for Maher. Would Dawkins be willing to be associated with an award given to Stalin? After all, being a famous atheist is all that matters!43. Comment #420195 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 1:10 am
Speculation. No evidence and completely divorced from current reality.
How many people do you know who have died because of astrology?
44. Comment #420197 by Reckless Monkey on September 30, 2009 at 1:14 am
45. Comment #420198 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 1:16 am
46. Comment #420199 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 1:19 am
The point is that the focus should be on supporting reason from the bottom up, not just attacking one particular form of unreason.
I'm happy if people give up religion for astrology before they arrive at reason. A lot less people will suffer.
I'm happy if people give up religion for astrology before they arrive at reason. A lot less people will suffer.
47. Comment #420200 by LBraschi on September 30, 2009 at 1:19 am
48. Comment #420202 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 1:25 am
49. Comment #420203 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 1:27 am
50. Comment #420204 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 1:28 am
1. Comment #420120 by Mango on September 29, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Other Comments by Mango