|Kandalor - 2009-05-31 |
I wish Bill Maher was either not a grating idiot or he held terrible viewpoints because hearing things I agree with come from his mouth makes me feel like I must be a big dumb asshole.
If it makes you feel better, he's violently pro-Israel and wholeheartedly supported Christine Maggiore.
|chairsforcheap - 2009-05-31 |
i'm as atheist as they come, but god i hate how much dawkins wants to suck maher's pathetic populist dick
|baleen - 2009-05-31 |
Yeah, way to go Dawkins.
|theSnake - 2009-05-31 |
When you're right about everything all your opponents are left with is to call you a smug asshole for being so right.
Sorry that Maher doesn't scrape and bow and give lip service to religion in an attempt to find middle ground.
Yeah sure "theSnake" I bet that's the same bullshit line you told Eve
This video is like a Bill O'Reilly video in a mirror universe. And you, theSnake, are just a conservative ass licker in a mirror universe.
So in this universe I argue loudly for things that are correct, rational, and forward thinking, but in this mirror universe I argue loudly in favor of ignorance and superstition?
Thank you for the complement, I am glad we live in this universe.
PS, this is a retarded argument and you should shut up forever.
PPS drown yourself
Seriously I am really getting tired of fellow "liberals" acting like we have to give respect to other people's ignorant opinions in the name of some kind of misguided celebration of diversity.
Um, you said Richard Dawkins is right about everything a little too dogmatically. Richard Dawkins operates on corroborated theories. There are relatively few scientific laws...
I think He'd disagree with you too.
OK, "Righter" about everything.
Well. Dawkins coming to my university and my friend who runs the atheist and agnostics club is putting him on, so I'm told. If I can get him for 2 seconds, I'll let you know what he says.
How "certain" someone is about something is a retarded way to judge how correct their beliefs are.
Dawkins gives himself a score of 6 out of 7 because he has the humility to say nobody can be 100% certain, and religious people have no such problem.
Anyone with half a brain realizes this is an underhanded "Fuck You" to religious people in its own right.
"How "certain" someone is about something is a retarded way to judge how correct their beliefs are."
This can go so many ways.
As long as you're right, you're allowed to act however you want.
On the question of if a god exists, Richard Dawkins is 87% sure the answer is no.
It's close. But it ain't enough.
1 star for this thread.
|Billie_Joe_Buttfuck - 2009-05-31 |
er bip bip bip bip bip bip bip bippity bip bip
also stars for this video
|KnowFuture - 2009-05-31 |
Dawkins' work (a few of his books on genetics and biology in general were course material when I was in school) was a lot more interesting before he became a religious fundamentalist ---and when your atheism is something you never shut up about, that's pretty much what you've turned into.
We were bros, Dawkins...YOU changed.
"Fundamentalist" is going the way of the word "fascist"--a meaningless slur.
Dawkins is a fantastic human being and we need more atheist advocates.
OK, mentally replace the word "fundamentalist" with the word "fanatical".
The most infuriating thing about Dawkins is I pretty much agree with everything he says but I think his approach, his tactics, are not things that are going to do anything---may in fact be a detriment---to advance the cause of or otherwise make things easier for the non-religious among us. I have atheist friends and some of them are really really noisy about it and a lot of the time it's in a trying-to-catch-flies-with-vinegar kind of way. I guess it's tough to be all in-your-face with the Xtian types while simultaneously maintaining a friendly, we're-all-in-this-together kind of thing for those out there being bullied by those same Xtian types who may not know any other non-believers.
Yeah, stupid atheists should just SHUT UP and treat religious fundies with the respect they deserve.
I mean, I too totally agree with everything Dawkins says, I just don't think people who are atheists should write books or talk openly about their beliefs, especially when it infringes on the comfort zones of Christians because, you know, when you point out the massive fallacies in a destructive global obsession that has set back mankind's progress, you just sound like a DICK, so stop already.
Also, I totally agree with doing EXACTLY what religious fundies do and put my beliefs in atheism, science, and logic on the exact same level as a supernaturally influenced religious belief of blind faith, because they're, like, totally the same thing.
Guys, we should all go out today to an Operation Rescue office and just chill, hang out, and be nice to those guys because, hey, it's cool that they advocated Tiller's death and now openly celebrate it, and being a JERK about it won't solve anything.
I NEVER said anything about atheists not speaking their minds. My point is just, whatever you believe or don't believe, don't be an asshole about it.
|DMKA - 2009-05-31 |
Why do people talk about him like he's some genius who discovered something revolutionary? People who think like this have been around forever WITHOUT being attention whores about it.
Yeah, why is this dick-hole so militant about being correct about things?
What was with that Galileo going on about his helio-centric solar system? That asshole just kept banging on about it over and over like some utter bastard just to take the piss out of good Christians who know that the world is the true center of the universe. He just wanted the attention.
|halon - 2009-06-01 |
I like Dawkins a lot but jesus christ fuck Mahr forever.
|Caminante Nocturno - 2009-06-01 |
Everyone in this interview was smug and it was annoying.
|dueserpenti - 2009-06-01 |
Look at this fucking love connection.
|rustedmutt - 2009-06-01 |
Screw the apologists.
|godot - 2009-06-01 |
To be fair, Dawkin's is not terribly accoomplished as a zoologist, but an extraordinary phrase maker: "selfish gene", "meme", even "god delusion". But even for for the selfish gene (aka sociobiology), Trivers and Hamilton had the ideas, EO Wilson wrote the textbook, Dawkins mostly turned it into compelling reading.
I don't think atheist militancy in the form of derrogation and name calling has much positive effect. If we're seeing much turn in young Americans, its due regular exposure to semi-anonymous peers on the internet who are atheist, and still okay people. Prior to last decade, there was a presumption in the media of immorality, or unhappy childhoods, etc.
If we as atheists are open about our nonbelief, and still nice people, we'll win far more "converts" to acknowledge their own nonbelief, than Dawkins will.
This is the same damn discussion that happens in every single political/civil rights movement. "Gosh, I agree with what you're saying, but since it upsets people you should blunt your criticism and try to say things nicely."
It's not a point without merit, but it seems like every time we look back at who actually got shit done, it's those who were willing to raise a fuss and be direct rather than censor themselves. Setting a good example helps, but that doesn't require leaving the public arena empty of an impassioned voice to challenge unsubstantiated slurs and scams. And if it's not Dawkins, who else?
"If we're seeing much turn in young Americans, its due regular exposure to semi-anonymous peers on the internet who are atheist, and still okay people.
It probably also comes from people like Dawkins being direct and saying things which strip the mantle of social presumption that religious beliefs can't be challenged in the same manner as others. And for that matter, this "militancy" and name calling from Dawkins is essentially an occasional swear word and insult directed as a vile person who apologetic atheists would also agree is vile. He's not Glenn Beck, and it's not the language he uses and points he makes that get him tagged as militant, but rather the subject he's addressing. In his religious debates there's typically only one person on the stage who claims that disagreement makes you a bad person rather than just wrong, and that you deserves eternal torture for it, and that person isn't Dawkins.
|Menudo con queso - 2009-06-01 |
Too much mutual adoration, not enough funny/insight.
|megaspy2000 - 2009-06-01 |
dawkins is a shit
|Hay Belly - 2009-06-02 |
Is Maher going through a Mafia/Guido phase?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|