• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The 5 Most Awful Atheists

dafydd said:
Are they all American? I've never heard of any of them.
Click to expand...


I'm English. I read one of Sam Harris' books a few years ago and seem to remember it being very good.

The other one I'd heard of was Bill Maher, from the documentary "Religulous". Oddly enough, watching that film, even though I'm an atheist I found myself thinking I maybe understood a bit more about why people are religious.

Actually, if one of the other people on the list is the guy from Penn & Teller then I have heard of him too although I don't know anything about his political beliefs. They did make a documentary debunking 9/11 truthers.
 
Daald said:
I can't believe that PZ was endorsing this. My respect for him diminishes the more he opens his mouth :( He should really stick to biology.
Click to expand...

He'd be number one on my list.

There's absolutely no reason why atheists - even people proselytising for atheism - should be particularly reasonable or insightful. Even if one takes the view that religion is entirely a snare and a delusion, and that these people have had the wisdom and insight to see through it, that doesn't mean that they are immune from being deceived in other ways.

The idea of the post seems to be that there are a set of "correct" views that people should subscribe to if they want to be members in good standing of the atheist club.
 
Wow. That's a rather condescending, insulting article.

I realize the rest of us are little more that drones, just doing whatever it is the dread leadership of the great Atheist Conspiracy order us to do, that we're little more than the unwashed brain dead, little more intelligent than the average "Dittohead," (and most people don't know where that came from, so it doesn't mean what you've been told it does), so I suppose that gives the list makers who concoct this sort of arrogant drivel every right to degrade the rest of us. That said, it's more than a little over the top to start with this sort of verbal barrage against people who have, for the most part, done more good than harm.

I've met Penn Jillette. I don't like Penn Jillette. But I'll tell you this about the man: I'll still stand up when he enters the room. I can't stand Maher's ignorance of history, nor his arrogance, but he's at least gotten people to talk to one another about what it is we believe.

I could go on, but I think you've got the idea.

I don't give a rat's damn about article like this. Fine, point made. You, author, are smarter than the rest of us miserable little spew. Glad to hear it.

How about if the rest of us ignore you, now?
 
The article isn't so much a problem with atheism, it's that there are atheists who also have bad qualities that aren't a part of their atheism.

Maher's stance on vaccines is a good example.

Sam Harris...I dunno, I've read his books and I find the views on profiling pragmatic* but not universal which is what Bruce Shneier pointed out, and Harris agreed to. I dunno how Harris got dragged through so much mud after that. Maybe Sam's right about how context gets lost in the blogosphere, deliberately or otherwise...

*You know, pragmatic is not the word I want to say. I want to mean that the idea makes sense, however in practice, as Shneier points out, it adds complexity. If we didn't have to worry about complexity then all things being equal I'm sure Harris and Schneier would have shook hands on it long ago.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
On Penn Jillette I can agree with this:

As for the rest of it, meh.
Click to expand...

and then there's this *******!

Edited, breach of rule 10.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the marketplace of ideas I'd like to think the good ones become successful and more common while the bad ones go bankrupt over time. I think the name calling and animosity just gives the enemies of skepticism a reason to gloat. Just as we may gloat when evangelical Christians berate Mormons for being heretics. Can't we just disagree without being disagreeable? Can't we all just get along?
 
comixman said:
In the marketplace of ideas I'd like to think the good ones become successful and more common while the bad ones go bankrupt over time. I think the name calling and animosity just gives the enemies of skepticism a reason to gloat. Just as we may gloat when evangelical Christians berate Mormons for being heretics. Can't we just disagree without being disagreeable? Can't we all just get along?
Click to expand...

Or just not get along? There's nothing wrong with saying that Penn Jillette has silly views. The problem is when he's singled out as an out of step atheist who needs to be brought back into line. His atheism and his politics are different things.
 
westprog said:
Or just not get along? There's nothing wrong with saying that Penn Jillette has silly views. The problem is when he's singled out as an out of step atheist who needs to be brought back into line. His atheism and his politics are different things.
Click to expand...

And this leads us to another point: Who the hell appointed whom to audit anyone's politics? That's probably the biggest insult in all of this.
 
An "alternative" journalist.


To quote Ross Perot, that's the kind of newspaper you get for free outside a supermarket. Also, had to look this person up, a Green party candidate bitching about libertarians -- compared to the Greens, libertarians middle of the road. Of course to a person whose brain is loaded with not one but two memetic vectors to full, complete control everyone's life -- socialism and environmentalism -- a party that gives government control the finger is her arch enemy.
 
Last edited:
I guess I consider myself an atheist (I say I guess because I was once on a plane that hit really, really bad turbulence, for those 5 minutes I wasn't atheist).

There are certain atheists I can't stand. Most are great... but there are some I sense would take great pleasure in telling a 5 year old dying cancer patient that he's going to die and never wake up, so stop thinking you are going to see grandma.
 
...

Eh, if no one else wants to say it,

A comforting lie to a dying kid is disgraceful for the liar. I wouldn't imagine anyone would walk away from that hospital bed happier with themselves, no matter what they said. It's never a pleasurable experience, unless of course the kid has a wry sense of humor of course; reverse Patch Adams.
 
comixman said:
In the marketplace of ideas I'd like to think the good ones become successful and more common while the bad ones go bankrupt over time. I think the name calling and animosity just gives the enemies of skepticism a reason to gloat. Just as we may gloat when evangelical Christians berate Mormons for being heretics. Can't we just disagree without being disagreeable? Can't we all just get along?
Click to expand...

Nice idea but the "marketplace of ideas" very rarely selects for quality. If that were true then no one would ever have heard of Deepak Chopra.
 
Stomatopoda said:
The only one I agree with is Maher. The guy is one of those rare cases where the old "atheist just to spite Mommy and Daddy" strawman manages to actually exist, and is just embarrassing to watch. He's like a reversed version of Ann Coulter. No reasoning or science, just the same ignorant talking points and dogma with the subjects switched around.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part is about the truest statement I've ever read about either one of them. They are both in the "feed red meat to their respective audiences" business, which doesn't lend itself to rational thought. With Maher though, that wasn't always true. Coutler on the other hand, has always been a bomb thrower.
 
Liam said:
The other one I'd heard of was Bill Maher, from the documentary "Religulous". Oddly enough, watching that film, even though I'm an atheist I found myself thinking I maybe understood a bit more about why people are religious.
Click to expand...

Oh, that was him, was it? Then I've heard of him. Terrible documentary. Really not sure what he was trying to accomplish with that.
 
To be honest, I'll even agree with a lot of that article, though I suppose Maher does say he's a comedian, and it seems to me like you can't make people laugh by reciting a valid study including the error bars and citations. I'm just kinda at a loss as to why does it matter that they're atheists. As the author says, the only qualification needed to enter that club is not believing in a deity.

Now noting that some self proclaimed skeptics fail to be skeptical, that would be more relevant. But otherwise it's as arbitrary a criterion as writing a list of top 5 stamp collectors who hold bogus beliefs wildly unrelated to stamp collecting :p
 
I definitely agree with the author about religiophile SE Cupp and Maher--I like his comedy, but his stance on vaccines is appalling--but the rest aren't bad at all. I really like Penn and Sam (even though Penn has a bit too much faith in laissez-faire capitalism), and can't comment on Ayaan Hirsi Ali other than to say I'm glad that she's speaking out against the atrocities of her former religion.
 
angrysoba said:
Nice idea but the "marketplace of ideas" very rarely selects for quality. If that were true then no one would ever have heard of Deepak Chopra.
Click to expand...
In the marketplace, if the Westboro Baptists are ground beef and Chopra is T-bone steak we just have to keep serving up the filet mignon. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom