Yes, and pissing off believers will make them behave much better towards non-believers. Being very respectful of them means they will be very respectful of everyone else...

Oh wait...

They disrespected us! That means we get to disrespect them! No way will this devolve into an endless feedback loop of mutual idiocy!

After Jesus turned the other cheek, he was like "a'ight bitches, I'M ALL OUTTA CHEEKS, BRACE YOSELF"

He is one of cable news's most cherished contributors: The professional strawman who doesn't realize he's a strawman.

It's less interesting when you notice the pattern: If the guest makes a point that doesn't fit with BO's message, or if a piece of info exists that does likewise, he doesn't talk about it and/or changes the subject.

His viewers eat that shit up, and they eat up lines like "I'm not the smartest guy on the block" because they worship him as a master debater and cunning intellect.

Two annoying, smug idiots.

I think that's the part that really tickled me. It's one thing for a professional scam artist to claim there is no explaination for the tides, but the guest has no such excuse. But it's a testament to how effective such arguments are given the level of scientific illiteracy among the general population. It really feels like we're living in the middle ages, yes?

Also: Atheists need to take a page from Martin Luther. You don't attack the belief, you attack the institution. The institutions are the fraud.

But the beliefs (in some cases) are stupid, and deserve to be attacked as well. It's the guest's disingenuous (and bullshit) claim that he's not actually insulting the believers that's retarded. Well... that, and the poor quality of his criticisms.

You may feel that they are; but I challenge you to do this in a way that does not simply reify the beliefs you are questioning. Rather, one should accept that people believe things, and focus on mitigating the evil caused by organizers taking advantage of that fact to enslave people. Really, if you think about it, you probably believe in many things which are questionably or undecidable in the scientific sense. For example, you have a spouse or partner? You believe they love you. There is no meter or scope you can use to measure this "love" thing. Yet you believe it exists. Is this such a bad thing? Belief is not the problem, in my opinion.

There's nothing wrong with reifying* beliefs; they're easier to attack & disprove when they're clearly stated.

And of course beliefs in general aren't the problem; I'm not advocating some sort of absolute objectivism. The problem is the content of particular beliefs. For example, the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God and should be obeyed with no critical thought is a ridiculous belief that should be mocked. Why is it ridiculous? Because it's internally inconsistent. Evil beliefs (i.e. beliefs that contain evil content) should also be attacked. Of course, a lot of discussion is required before we can with any confidence declare a belief evil, and some beliefs require a lot of analysis before we can declare them inconsistent. But the fact that it's hard to do shouldn't mean that we shy away from doing it.

*Good word, by the way. I didn't know the English language had a word for this concept until you used it.