101. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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").

102. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

103. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

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.

104. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35347 by MrEmpirical on April 27, 2007 at 12:15 am

I suppose those dumb-ass Birkenstock women wouldn't mind if their right to vote were revoked? After all, who are they to judge the ways of a culture?

105. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35345 by MrEmpirical on April 27, 2007 at 12:05 am

It's rationality time!

Here's a summary of the points that Bill Maher made during the interview:

1) Religion is mostly destructive
2) We shouldn't believe something just because we've been told it
3) The Gospel account of Jesus' life is absurb
4) There might be a God, but who cares? (of course, he cared enough to make a documentary, but only because we are constantly barraged by theism)
5) You should be a good person for the sake of being a good person (i.e. not for religious motivations)
6) Christianity masquerades as humble and self-sacrificing, but its core doctrine is selfish and arrogant
7) You can do good deeds without believing in a religion
8) Religion can warp the mind
9) Christianity is too influential in the Bush Administration
10) Religion warps the opinions of the people who run the world, who are enabled by the broader population of believers
11) The Sunnis and Shiites are fighting for idiotic religious reasons
12) Religions are childhood myths that stop us from thinking straight and solving our problems
13) We should use science and rationality to guide our political decision-making, not religion

These 13 points sound pretty much identical to points that I've heard Dawkins and Harris make during their television appearances.

So why all the haters? You may think Maher is unfunny, but I doubt his interview was posted on this website for comedy purposes. Why not give Maher some praise for making 13 crisp clear points against religion? I'm sure they reached a fairly wide audience, so I'm definitely happy about that.

106. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34113 by MrEmpirical on April 23, 2007 at 9:01 am

This is the reason why I believe that atheists should unite (to some reasonable degree) against religion:

Religions are powerful. Religious lobbies are powerful. Religion influences politics, policy, and society. Important political decisions (e.g. regarding stem-cell research) are made on the basis of religious convictions. Any rational person can see that this is a troubling state of affairs. Any decision (even a 'good' decision) that is not made on the basis of evidence should be highly disturbing. The thought of our leaders making decisions on the basis of unsubstantiated beliefs should worry us all.

So, given this troubling state of affairs, what is to be done? How can rational people stand up against the powerful religious lobbies? Like it or not, rationalists and atheists need to band together so that their collective voice may be heard. A humanist, rationalist, or atheist lobby could be a powerful force in society, and it could counteract the influence of religious lobbies. In America, for example, atheists outnumber Jews. The American Jewish lobby is very powerful, so it follows that an atheist lobby could be even more powerful, provided it could draw upon a significant proportion of the atheists in America.

If not on the basis of principle, atheists should unite for practical reasons, namely to combat the undeserved influence of religion and dogma in society. As noted in a previous comment, significant social changes (e.g. racial equality, feminism, gay pride) are often made by passionate people who stand up and rally support for their causes. Unfortunately, religious people are aware of this fact, and they stand up and rally support for their unproven dogmas. Atheists need to stand up and rally support for positions that can be substantiated with evidence and reason.

107. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #33829 by MrEmpirical on April 22, 2007 at 4:04 am

Why do you think people misunderstand topics such as evolution and global warming in the first place? Because they have not been sufficiently exposed to the methods and joys of science.

If scientists opt to shy away from presenting the full implications and details of science, misuderstandings will continue to occur. In my view, it would be better for scientists to be completely upfront about their work (and risk being viewed as confrontational), rather than temporarily appease the public only to be met with fresh misunderstandings further down the track. Let's deal with ignorance swiftly and decisively, rather than perpetuating ignorance through appeasement and tip-toe tactics. To paraphrase the comedian Jerry Seinfeld: "Do it like removing a band-aid, rip it right off!"

Imagine if journalists like Nisbet and Mooney were to say things like "Let's face it. The majority of Americans disapprove of homosexuality. So gay-pride activists should stop protesting so loudly, they should go back into the closet and stop upsetting the majority". There would be outrage. Or imagine if someone had told Martin Luther King Jnr not to speak out so passionately about racism: "C'mon, Martin, the majority of Americans dislike the black race, so why don't you just quieten down, things will be better that way." But when it comes to atheists, and matters of religion, the unwarranted respect still pervades. Atheists, unlike gay-pride or racial activists, are still expected to hide away and keep quiet. This is an unhelpful and unrealistic expectation. Great and important changes are often accomplished by impassioned people, such as Richard Dawkins, who are not afraid to confront the problems of society directly.

108. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #32142 by MrEmpirical on April 16, 2007 at 1:11 am

From comment #31191:

The reader of Andrew's blog says:

"Sometimes, instead of finding answers, we just have to live the questions. And we do. We all do. Every day. This is the real world and our experience of it: no matter how much we know, most of the important stuff is steeped in mystery. Strange that some athiests, who fashion themselves realists, cannot accept that simple reality."

Let's reword this, from the point of view of an Egyptian from 5000 BC:

Sometimes, instead of finding answers to why the Sun moves through the sky, we just have to live the question. And we do. We all do. Every day. This is the real world and our experience of it: no matter how much we know, most of the important stuff, like how the Sun moves through the sky, is steeped in mystery. Some have suggested that a divine chariot is responsible. Who knows? Strange that some athiests, who fashion themselves realists, cannot accept the simple reality that the mystery of the Sun's motion is beyond us all.

The religious notion of "mystery" is just a sexed-up version of the "God of the gaps" argument. Mysteries exist because we are ignorant of some things. As such, mysteries 'exist' in our minds. And yet so many Christians speak of mysteries as if they are entities that exist in the physical world. I'm sure we've all heard a Christian say "You've just got to stand in awe of the mystery of creation". Sorry, but I'm not going to stand in awe of my own ignorance. I'd much rather stand in awe of my knowledge. I'd much rather stand in awe of the majesties that can be observed in the universe.

109. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32115 by MrEmpirical on April 15, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Saying that an ex-Hitler Youth member is unsuitable for the role of Pope (or of chairman of an oil company) is like saying you don't trust the pilot of your 747 flight because he crashed his tricycle as a child.

Don't get me wrong, the Pope is ignorant, bigoted, and out of touch. But let's stick to valid reasons why he is compromised.

110. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31451 by MrEmpirical on April 12, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Ian,

Are you forgetting that Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler YOUTH?

The important word being YOUTH.

How can you judge someone's eligibility for an influential job based upon what they did as a MINOR?

You may as well assert that children of Christian parents should stand up against the illogicality of their parents' beliefs and declare themselves atheists by age 9!

And besides, would you have us believe that people should always be judged by the actions they performed 50 years ago? If someone committed murder at age 20, was released from prison at age 35, and by age 70 had developed - through a concerted effort to reform themselves - into a person of admirable moral character and rational integrity, why cling to the memory of the murder? Why not judge them for who they are today? Obviously this is a highly contrived analogy, but you get my point.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Pope is ethically and intellectually compromised, but I wouldn't necessarily judge him on the basis of how he acted as a minor in the distant past.