Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by William


1. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43817 by William on May 22, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Is it that hard for your simple patriotic mind to understand that if I was a poor brown man living in an obscure village in a country the name of which you probably cant even pronounce and lost my entire family to US carpet bombing, and had nothing to live for, I just might dedicate my life to revenge?

More of your "noble savage" rhetoric, catchy nick? While the organizers of 9/11 were certainly brown, they can hardly be described as poor men from obscure villages. Mohammed Atta was raised in a suburb of Cairo by middle-class parents, and went to college in Hamburg, Germany. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed earned a degree in mechanical engineering from a North Carolina university and was involved in the electronics industries and NGOs of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Qatar. Osama Bin Laden, of course, was born into a wealthy family in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

You also contradict yourself. First, you accuse the American public of responsibility for the actions of their elected officials because "your precious votes give them the power to commit atrocities around the world and in their own country." Then, two sentences later, you say "Keep living under the delusion that America is the greatest country in the world, and that your votes matter." If our precious votes don't matter, then how can we held responsible?

2. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39449 by William on May 10, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Having this Christopher Hitchens fellow in the Atheist camp may do more harm than good...It is time we ignore him.

Groupthink won't help the "cause," either.

I won't be surprised if he makes racist remarks.

And what's the basis for this slanderous statement? Has he ever given the slightest indication that he harbors racist sentiments?

3. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38622 by William on May 8, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Do William and IQHQ not believe that napalm is being used in Iraq?

Is filthyatheist not aware that Hitchens is a vociferous critic of the use of napalm?

And what ever you think of Hitchens debating skills, he supports this carnage.

He absolutely does not. These are nothing but straw men. You point to the worst abuses of the military and accuse anyone who favors the war of supporting such atrocities.

4. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38589 by William on May 8, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Sorry I dont like supporters of war especially the one going on right now.

If you want to disagree with him on the war, fine. But you had no right to accuse him of being a racist or of approving of the deaths of small children. That was totally inaccurate and defamatory.

5. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38586 by William on May 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I cant get behind someone who believes that life is precious and we get one shot at it, but its ok for political gain to spray napalm on small brown children.

Absolutely despicable, catchy nick. Shame on you.

6. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38551 by William on May 8, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Hitchens is really only a conservative when it comes to the Iraq War (and antipathy towards Bill Clinton). Conservatives, I'm sure, would be hesitant to embrace him as one of their one, not least for articles like this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/
where he bashes their most beloved hero.

7. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37274 by William on May 4, 2007 at 12:35 am

I don't think he volunteered to write the article, Times probably asked him to.

Oh, yeah, like he didn't leap at the opportunity to toss off a few back-handed compliments and subtly influence Time readers' perception of Dawkins and his work.

Just read between the lines of the final sentence: "Whatever the merit of his ideas (read: they have none), Richard Dawkins is not lukewarm (read: he's an extremist)."

or:

"at 16 (Dawkins) discovered Charles Darwin (read: he was converted to atheism by that wicked man's book - don't expose your children to the Origin of Species, whatever you do!) and believed he'd found a pearl of great price (read: but he was mistaken)"

From his perspective, he is simply being gracious,

As if Dawkins needed his courtesy. More realistically, Behe is using this as an opportunity to promote himself and his cause. The gracious thing to do would have been to decline Time's offer, and suggest that they get someone less contentious. This is, after all, supposed to be a celebration of Dawkins and his book. Instead, all we're talking about is Michael Behe!

8. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?

Comment #37226 by William on May 3, 2007 at 6:35 pm

For shame! Many of you are cheating. The last 25 years means 1982 and later. "Cosmos," "The Selfish Gene," The Feynman Lectures," "The Mismeasure Of Man," "Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas," "1984," & "Catch 22," to name just a few, were all published before the cut-off date.

9. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37091 by William on May 3, 2007 at 11:12 am

What Michael Behe said was not actually that bad

No, but it was unctuous and disingenuous. Clearly, Behe is using Dawkins' selection as an opportunity to further the deception that there is an actual scholarly debate going on, presenting himself as a friendly but dissenting peer, a reasonable proponent of ID who is generous enough to praise his opponents. And the very fact that Time chose HIM to write the Dawkins piece is outrageous. I'm glad I canceled my subscription to this worthless magazine.

10. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36893 by William on May 2, 2007 at 4:58 pm

unfortunately, the Hitch was just a little too tanked that night.

Look, you're going to have to point to a specific instance in the video where he's slurring his speech or appears to be off-balance (unfortunately there's no clock but you could give an approximation), because I simply do not see it.

If I were his publisher, I'd be having a very stern chat to him about now.

Hitchens is a grown man and a distinguished journalist. He's not some callow pop star who will sit for a lecture from his handlers. If his publisher has a problem with his drinking (and why would they, since his "bad-boy" reputation has probably done nothing but boost sales), he can simply take his work to another house. What's more, publishing houses don't busy themselves with the personal lives of their authors.

Compare it to his usual performances -
Actually, I thought he came off very well here. Certainly better than his previous appearance on the Daily Show, when he was promoting his book on Thomas Jefferson.

11. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36785 by William on May 2, 2007 at 9:57 am

For crap's sake - you do understand what an ad hominem is, don't you?

Criticism accepted. I realize that no-one in this thread engaged in an ad hominem. I wrote that comment out of general frustration of the many people both in the media and on the net who DO attempt to dismiss him because of his drinking. Anyway, it has been erased.

It's simply sad that a generally eloquent proponent of rationality and atheism IS a drunk.

I don't know how sad it is. It's his life and body, not our business.

The guy was clearly tanked

"Tanked" is far too strong a word.

12. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36658 by William on May 2, 2007 at 12:57 am

Compared to his normal eloquence, Hitchens was slurring his words, he was physically off balance at a couple of points and (most uncharacteristic) he seemed to be having a little trouble maintaining a train of thought.

Are we talking about the same video? I didn't hear any slurring or see any loss of balance (can you point to a specific time on the video?). As for losing his train of thought (which I don't find, either, but perhaps I don't construe it in the same way you do), that's probably due to Stewart's constant interruptions.

13. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #36647 by William on May 1, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Many books still claim that in ancient societies, everyone died around age 40, and the current condition of spending decades infertile is an accident of modern life-lengthening technology. Wrong again.

Everyone in ancient societies had the potential to live to 70, but most of them didn't make it, due to disease, malnutrition, war, famine, etc. In Neolithic societies the average life expectancy was about 20. So these books are not wrong, unless they're claiming that it's natural to die at 40 because after that you've outlived your reproductive usefulness. Personally, I've never read a book that has made such a claim.

a woman who has survived her own childhood and the births of all her children to reach menopause (no mean feat) can confidently expect to live another twenty years.
Yes, but most women didn't survive childhood and giving birth. Those that did likely owed their longevity to an inherent hardiness, and could very well expect to enjoy numerous post-menopausal years. This is not a fact that was hidden in the interest of promulgating the myth of "energetic sperm." I think you're too eager to attribute sexist motivations to the scientists and historians of the past.

scientists didn't re-examine their views of energetic masculine sperm and passive feminine eggs until feminism had arrived on the scene.

This strikes me as a trivial example of a "cultural construct." The fact that some scientists chose to label sperm "energetic" and eggs "passive," while semantically imprecise and indicative of an unattractive chauvinism, had nothing to do with the empirical, objective facts that science was revealing about reproduction. It almost certainly had a minimal effect on research. Feminists do have a tendency of making mountains out of molehills.

14. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36642 by William on May 1, 2007 at 10:03 pm

but he has a hidden agenda and that agenda is that it is OK for the USA to invade or bomb muslim countries,

His "agenda" is not hidden. He's very up front about his opinions. And his contention is that it is more than OK, in fact it is necessary, for the U.S. to remove dictators from power, whether they be at the head of Muslim countries or not. It's essentially a form of Idealistic Anti-Fascism.

including relatively secular ones like Iraq.

While Iraq isn't a theocracy, it's hardly secular, even relatively speaking. And I don't understand your distinction. Why is it somehow more reprehensible to attack "a relatively secular Muslim country" like Iraq rather than, say, Iran? Because Saddam was less devout than the Ayatollah we should have left him alone?

I don't necessarily agree with Hitchens' views on foreign policy (mostly on pragmatic grounds) but I don't think you can just dismiss him as a warmonger, or an anti-Muslim crusader. His political philosophy is more nuanced than that.

15. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36610 by William on May 1, 2007 at 6:19 pm

But a TV studio interview on a book tour is not a bar.

That's not what I meant. I meant "Haven't you ever been to a bar and witnessed how a drunk person actually behaves?" Is Hitchens slurring his speech? Is he off-balance? What makes you think he's drunk?

I'd say at most he had a quick drink or two in the green room, a perfectly congenial method of decreasing anxiety and lubricating conversation. I mean, come on people, he's not behind the wheel here!

16. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36584 by William on May 1, 2007 at 4:17 pm

I can't believe that THIS is what some people consider "drunk"! Haven't you folks ever been to a bar?

17. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36554 by William on May 1, 2007 at 2:16 pm

But showing up drunk for interviews, not once, but repeatedly, is completely unprofessional.

There's a difference between being a drunkard and being drunk. While Hitchens is clearly a man who's downed a few in his time, he doesn't appear in any sense to be drunk in this interview. He's coherent, even eloquent. He's not falling over himself or being unresponsive or belligerent (although he did sort of hit on Stewart).

You've also got to remember that many of his television appearances these days are on Fox News or Bill Maher's show. If he requires a drink or two beforehand, in order to fortify himself against the barrage of inanity, I think it's excusable. It may even be essential.

18. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #36324 by William on April 30, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Always be aware when things are taken out of context that you don't take it as the last word.

The problem is that all we have is your word that it all becomes comprehensible when placed in the "proper context." Before I invest a substantial amount of time in Deleuze's work, as well as the various exegeses that are apparently required for full understanding, shouldn't I have more than personal testimony to suggest that it's a worthwhile endeavor?

I'm willing to apply myself, to the best of my admittedly limited ability, to rather abstruse subject matter if I have good reason to suspect that it will lead to an expanded apprehension of the universe or anything in it. What will I find in Deleuze? "A complete reworking of ontology and metaphysics to come into line with contemporary science"? That's rather vague (as well as brazen.)

Why can't Deleuze, or any of the other "continental philosophers" or their interpreters simply state, in a clear and unequivocal manner, what they're getting at? Why do they have to constantly couch it in what you yourself refer to as "silly prose"? Why is it necessary to use so many neologisms?

I'm sorry, but this stuff has all the hallmarks of mysticism and pseudoscience. The opacity, the evasiveness, the misuse of scientific terminology - all of it designed to give off the appearance of profundity. And all of it designed to prop up a hierarchy of priests and scholars and acolytes.

19. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

20. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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."

21. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35739 by William on April 28, 2007 at 5:18 pm

The fact that Cho Seng-hui referenced Jesus doesn't necessarily make him a believer. The crucifixion is as much a literary trope as a tenet of the Christian religion. In the same sense, I could refer to Mao Zedong's Long March in a metaphor for struggle and determination. That wouldn't necessarily mean I'm a Communist.

As of yet, I see no good evidence to suggest that Cho was a believer or a non-believer, so I think we should reserve judgment on the matter.

Also, I think people are focusing too much on the banana argument. Yes, it is hilarious. But don't think you can just laugh these guys away. Has anybody ever seen this show? It's horrifying. It's nothing more than fascist propaganda, and these guys have a lot of admirers.

22. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

23. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

24. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

25. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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?

26. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35594 by William on April 27, 2007 at 7:09 pm

I agree that it's important to consider how any new scientific knowledge will be used, but I wonder if we might not be over-wary. I think we've been conditioned by the media, literature, films, etc. to automatically fear that scientific progress, especially if it has to do with our brains, could potentially lead to some repressive, dystopian, technocratic future. We worry that it might limit our sense of free will, and diminish the meaning of the choices we make. It might make the world more boring, more conformist.

This is a subject that interests me greatly. As we learn more and more about how are minds work, will we differentiate ourselves from our ancestors to a degree that we evolve into essentially another species? If, for example, we find a way to eradicate violence and aggression, traits which have been so salient in our history, will our interests and concerns diverge to such an extent that we can no longer relate in any meaningful sense to the preoccupations of our ancestors?

If so, I'm all for it. I don't think the human race is so wonderful.

27. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

28. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

29. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

30. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35548 by William on April 27, 2007 at 3:05 pm

It is so childish as to not warrant one.

Childish?! You want to talk about childish? How about the fact that in this thread I've been called a cretin, a snob, an arsehole, awful, an idiot, a neocon fascist, and an assortment of other epithets - all because I dared to speak ill of the great Bill Maher! Except for the first one, every comment I've posted has been in response to some attack on me. I don't appreciate being on the receiving end of this inverted snobbery (Yes, I said it!!).

31. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35547 by William on April 27, 2007 at 2:58 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.

Grammatical errors are indicative of a certain laziness of mind. I see no reason why I shouldn't point them out. Goes to establish character, I should think.

As for the "elitist" remark, I take it as a compliment. An elitist, used in this context, is just another name for a person with high intellectual standards, as far as I can tell.

32. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35542 by William on April 27, 2007 at 2:47 pm

You seem apparently of the same ilk as our American breed of fascist neocons who, when failing in their attempts to destroy another's message/opinion, turn instead to destroying the messenger

WTF? Where is this coming from? How am I like the "fascist neocons"? Because I posted a few sarcastic comments about Bill Maher and his fans?

You have [so far] posted 15 comments in this thread.

Yeah, so? I thought that's what threads were for - posting comments.

But I'm certainly not going to travel down that nasty and futile road of beating you over the head until you agree with me as you are attempting to do here to us.

I don't give one iota of a fuck whether you agree with me or not. I'm not trying to beat anyone over the head.

There's a generous amount of vitriol in your post, CruciFiction. I'd say you have a great deal of repressed anger and frustration. There, I've figured out what's wrong with you. You're welcome.

33. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35511 by William on April 27, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Re: Comment #86 by Steven Mading

I know what he said. I was watching that particular episode.

Bravery doesn't just mean "not being afraid." One can be fearless through utter stupidity or lack of awareness. That doesn't make one "brave."

I agree that politicians referring to the 9/11 hijackers as "cowards" is just empty rhetoric, but I have a hard time considering the hijackers brave in any sense, brainwashed as they were by religious fanaticism. I think true bravery has to involve some element of rational choice.

In fact, there's evidence to suggest that most of the hijackers were unaware that they were on a suicide mission. Does that make them brave, or just dupes? The passengers on the first three planes were certainly unaware that they were shortly to be crashing into buildings, otherwise they would have fought back like those on board Flight 93. Was it brave of the lead hijackers to lie to or mislead those people in order to avoid the inconvenience of resistance?

Crashing into a building at about 500 miles per hour, thus ensuring an instantaneous death, doesn't require much courage - just a bit of resolve. There was no potential for suffering.

Face it, Maher's faux-pas was no more than a bumbling, ill-advised attempt at being provocative. I thought the overreaction was silly, and it was unfortunate that he was fired, not least of all because, to some people, it turned him into a martyr for free speech.

34. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35503 by William on April 27, 2007 at 11:44 am

I'm noticing an interesting trend while reading through these posts. Those that support Maher are for the most part awkward, ill-spelled, ungrammatical, vulgar, peevish, fawning, irrelevant, defensive, and occasionally outright belligerent.

Funny, that. I suppose you can tell a lot about a fellow by the type of audience he attracts.

35. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35498 by William on April 27, 2007 at 11:34 am

He has bravely defended his views even when it harmed his personal career (like getting fired from politically incorrect)

He got fired from P.I. for shooting his mouth off in a silly and boorish manner. Imprudence requires no bravery.

36. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35338 by William on April 26, 2007 at 11:02 pm

There's a great deal of anger and disorganization in your post, alovrin. You're not planning to shoot up a school or anything like that, are you?

37. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35335 by William on April 26, 2007 at 10:45 pm

I'm American and I can't stand Maher. The only thing typically "American" about his comedy is its shoddiness.

Well over half of the US population are morons. The fact that they haven't heard of Hitchens is not surprising. (Ironically, the first time I encountered the man was when he appeared on Politically Incorrect years ago.)

38. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35332 by William on April 26, 2007 at 10:11 pm

From what I can tell you definately want to be part of the "club". Thats why you are on this site,

Posting a few comments on a website is not joining a club. I like communicating with like-minded individuals as much as the next guy, but I don't expect to agree with or even like everyone I meet here.

Regarding the war quote. Didn't you say this "An army doesn't go into battle with defective or ineffective weaponry. Not if they can help it."

As I explained earlier, I was continuing Joe OD's metaphor in order to make a point. That doesn't mean I thought it was a good metaphor.


And lastly, Bill Maher will be seen and heard by more people than all of the great minds you mentioned above -combined!!!

I don't know about that. I threw out a lot of names, and Real Time isn't exactly competing with American Idol in the ratings.

But I'll allow that Maher does convey the atheist message to a lot of people. That's irrelevant to my charge that he's shallow and unfunny.

39. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35323 by William on April 26, 2007 at 9:34 pm

William, unfortuately the criticizing of fellow atheist is rampant.

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean he's immune from criticism from his fellow atheists. And what's with this "fellow" business, anyway? This isn't some sort of club, you know. Just because Maher and you and I reject the same archaic, superstitious beliefs doesn't mean we have anything else in common. This isn't Communism. We're not all "comrades."

Howard Stern is an atheist, as well. Does that mean I can't criticize his puerile radio program?
How inclusive does the atheism tent get?

We are in a war - and you and I are grunts. Sure we do our part- but we need to support the generals too.

This isn't a war. There's no need for a bunker mentality. And Maher is hardly a general. At best he's a second lieutenant.

I mean, really, what need have we of Maher when we have Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Hitchens, Chomsky, Vidal, Schermer, Randi, Atkins, Rushdie, Singer, Wilson, and a host of other scientists, writers and thinkers, both living and dead, who are far more qualified to represent the cause than some fifth-rate TV hack?

40. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35312 by William on April 26, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Re: Comment #35310 by CDG.

I am another Bill Maher fan. I am starting to get a little concerned that this sight attracts and inordinate amount of whiners

Criticizing someone is not "whining."

we can't afford to be too choosy.

But there's nothing wrong with having standards.

41. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35291 by William on April 26, 2007 at 7:32 pm

they all were wearing Birkenstocks...one of them had a bumper sticker on her car that read "cut the crap, not the baby" referring to circumcision I presume.

They sound like damned, dirty hippies. In that case, they probably didn't major in anything other than Bongology.

42. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35285 by William on April 26, 2007 at 7:16 pm

His monologue and style are almost classic Johnny Carson.

Oh, puh-leaze! He shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Carson.

43. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35284 by William on April 26, 2007 at 7:15 pm

And remember to vote for Dawkins at Time.com

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1612457,00.html

According to the latest numbers at Time.com, Dawkins is behind Sanjaya Malakar, Perez Hilton, Angelina Jolie, Howard Stern, and Bono.

The good news is that he's beating out Dane Cook, Justin Timberlake, Jay-Z, Paris Hilton, Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey, and Simon Cowell.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is getting absolutely crushed. He's got fewer votes than Mary J. Blige.

Why should we even participate in this inane popularity contest? Who cares anyway? Does anybody still see Time as a bastion of respectable journalism? Did anybody ever? It's always been piffle.

44. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35278 by William on April 26, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Re: Comment #35276 by Bonzai

I think it is kind of silly to think of atheists as an "army"

I was continuing Joe OD's metaphor. He wrote:
We should bring all our guns to bear on religion.

45. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35277 by William on April 26, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Alright, you guys are a bunch of snobby bastards, aren't you.

Dashed annoying that one can't criticize the more lowbrow varieties of entertainment these days without suffering the accusation of snobbery.

46. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35275 by William on April 26, 2007 at 6:46 pm

I look forward to this movie, and would suggest people support him. We don't have the clout not to.

So just because somebody's an atheist, he automatically deserves our support? I disagree with that. An army doesn't go into battle with defective or ineffective weaponry. Not if they can help it.

47. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35270 by William on April 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Re: Comment #35267 by SwordOfDiplomacy

first of all, don't trust wikipedia, especially not about stuff like that because any idiot can write whatever they want

The Wikipedia link was intended to be a joke. Ann Coulter - Succubus. Get it?

I know that Maher dated Coulter because he said so on his show.

48. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35265 by William on April 26, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Re: Comment #35244 by CDG

Did these "5 American Women" major in the Humanities or Social Sciences by any chance?

Typical, asinine cultural relativism. If we can't pass judgment on different types of cultures, including our own, how are we to decide which are the cultural attributes we should most like to propagate? What is the ideal culture that humanity as a whole should strive towards? These are important questions. They go all the way back to Plato and his Republic. But they are being stultified and repressed by post-modernists in the name of a shallow political correctness.

The arrogance of ignorance.

49. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35257 by William on April 26, 2007 at 6:13 pm

I can't stand Maher either. I find him to be irritating, ill-informed, and smart-alecky, even when I agree with him. And he must be the worst stand-up comedian in history. Have you ever watched one of his opening monologues? It's torture! He invariably goes for the cheap laugh, and usually fails to get it.

Just another ignorant blowhard masquerading as a political commentator.

And he's only rational on occasion. In 1999, the James Randi Educational Foundation gave him a Pigasus Award for endorsing psychics.

Plus, he's dated Ann Coulter (as has Dinesh D'Souza, BTW). I direct you to this Wikipedia entry to learn about the results of that ill-fated romance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucubus

Suffice it to say, Maher almost certainly no longer has a soul.

50. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35227 by William on April 26, 2007 at 4:03 pm

"The problem of our country is unemployment, rapid increase in the number of crimes and murders, not women's dress,"

This brings to mind the current Richard Gere kissing controversy. Doesn't India have bigger problems to worry about, like poverty, overpopulation and ethnic and religious conflict?

Maybe this is something that a religiously inspired moral panic offers people: an outlet for their frustration and impotence, a distraction from their more serious, and perhaps insoluble, problems.

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Next