Richard Dawkins on Real Time with Bill Maher

Dave!

Hey folks,


For those of you unfamiliar with Bill Maher: a. shame on you, b. he's an atheist, liberal, hippy, etc., talk show host. He's had Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris on the show previously. He also made the documentary Religulous. Ohhh that guy ! Yeah him

Anyways there's not been alot of new threads in this forum for a while, so might as well spice it up with a bit of Dawkins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxFf0RYC9ZA

Not a great interview at all, but always worth a gander...

Pacifico

Poor interview alright....Dawkins looked really uncomfortable....

Rest of that episode was quite good though!!

5uspect

The trouble with Maher is his wacko views on medicine.

Maher won the Richard Dawkins award at this years Atheist Alliance International Convention.
http://www.atheistalliance.org/Latest/Report-on-ASH-of-Malawi-National-Conference.html

There was a lot of criticism of this decision:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/aai_evening_award_ceremony.php

MrPudding

I thought he was agnostic...?

MrP

adamd164

He is; he describes atheism as a position of faith. As said above, he also pushes quack non-medicine.

But Religulous was quality to be fair.

ChocolateSauce

He's also on the board of PETA. PETA!

His politics are sound, his views on religion are enlightened, but he isn't perfect. Just goes to show you that irrationality isn't exclusive to the superstitious.

Zillah

From bits and pieces I've heard from him he sounds like a Deist. Huge critic of religion, still pretty crazy anyway.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Strange how a discussion supposedly about religion can turn into one about people who 'hate the west' living in 'crappy countries' with apparently worse education than the US. Who or what are they talking about?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

hitchens

Zillah

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

hitchens

Hitchens for tyrannical atheist dictator.

James74

Pacifico wrote: »

Poor interview alright....Dawkins looked really uncomfortable....

Rest of that episode was quite good though!!

Poor interview...but it was still better than that Late Late Show effort.

rugbyman

"he describes atheism as a position of faith."

good point , may have to re evaluate myself

Rugbyman

OK-Cancel-Apply

I don't get why so many people have so much time for Hitchens. He's a dishonest neo-con twat.

Zillah

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I don't get why so many people have so much time for Hitchens. He's a dishonest neo-con twat.

Advocating an interventionist foreign policy does not a neo-con make. He has in fact explicitly rejected the title.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Well he's certainly an apologist for the Bush administration and the Iraq war.

Carpo

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Well he's certainly an apologist for the Bush administration and the Iraq war.

I was fundamentally opposed to Hitchens views on these matters. Nevertheless, I watched a series of videos on youtube in which he described and defended his beliefs in this regard. It was the most eloquent and well thought out portrayal of the view from the other side of the fence I have seen, before or since. Watching these videos, I was forced to reconsider and reevaluate my own thoughts on these subjects. In the end, I arrived at more or less the same conclusions I had before hand, but they were now better considered and thought out then they had been.

To dismiss Hitchens as a 'dishonest neo-con twat' or a Bush apologist is to, quite simply, miss an opportunity.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Carpo wrote: »

I was fundamentally opposed to Hitchens views on these matters. Nevertheless, I watched a series of videos on youtube in which he described and defended his beliefs in this regard. It was the most eloquent and well thought out portrayal of the view from the other side of the fence I have seen, before or since. Watching these videos, I was forced to reconsider and reevaluate my own thoughts on these subjects. In the end, I arrived at more or less the same conclusions I had before hand, but they were now better considered and thought out then they had been.

To dismiss Hitchens as a 'dishonest neo-con twat' or a Bush apologist is to, quite simply, miss an opportunity.

So he's not a dishonest neo-con twat, he just moves in mysterious ways?

Sounds like you are assuming that I haven't thought this out. Why does Hitchens deserve the time of day? Why shouldn't I call him a twat? He is just one of many people who tries to defend the indefensible, who tries to make a case for the Iraq war which has needlessly killed over 1.1 million people so far. Why even try to defend Hitchens? Is it just because he's and atheist? What more can I say that Galloway didn't say when he reduced him to a stuttering mess and exposed him as the slimeball he is...

I don't know why, as atheists, we feel the need to build new deities for ourselves.

Carpo

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

So he's not a dishonest neo-con twat, he just moves in mysterious ways?

Sounds like you are assuming that I haven't thought this out. Why does Hitchens deserve the time of day? Why shouldn't I call him a twat? He is just one of many people who tries to defend the indefensible, who tries to make a case for the Iraq war which has needlessly killed over 1.1 million people so far. Why even try to defend Hitchens? Is it just because he's and atheist? What more can I say that Galloway didn't say when he reduced him to a stuttering mess and exposed him as the slimeball he is...

I don't know why, as atheists, we feel the need to build new deities for ourselves.

Deities? As I said above, even after listening to his arguments I still disagree with him (I also find him quite rude and unlikeable if that helps). That being said I do not assume that arguments for contrary opinions to my own should be dismissed out of hand or have no merit. Of course, if you think that all he has to say in this regard is utterly devoid of any merit and not worth any consideration, even in it serving to improve your own point of view, then good for you.

stevejazzx

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

So he's not a dishonest neo-con twat, he just moves in mysterious ways?

Sounds like you are assuming that I haven't thought this out. Why does Hitchens deserve the time of day? Why shouldn't I call him a twat? He is just one of many people who tries to defend the indefensible, who tries to make a case for the Iraq war which has needlessly killed over 1.1 million people so far. Why even try to defend Hitchens? Is it just because he's and atheist? What more can I say that Galloway didn't say when he reduced him to a stuttering mess and exposed him as the slimeball he is...

I don't know why, as atheists, we feel the need to build new deities for ourselves.

You almost got everything right until you mentioned George Galloway.
The Saddam handshake aside Galloway reducing someone else to a slimeball is a new one for me. Hitchens backed the Iraq war in a way which was far removed from what the Iraq war was really about. Hitchens backs the removal of rogue, dangerous states. He is obviously extremely vigilant in his atheistic views and this carries through in his foreign policy ideas also. His mistake was that the Bush administration were never going to really commit to any kind any democratic rebuilding of the middle east. They just wanted get Saddam out, secure oil futures set rebuilding contracts and throw together some form of Iraq self rule. They were never interested in going further than that, Hitchens 'idealism' was never realized. It's hard to imagine Hitchens being so naive until you consider his vigilance on such matters. The fact that he cared and had seen, after spending a considerable amount of time in the middle east, the horrors there for himself is what makes ignore this side of his character because it is so obviously flawed.

However some of his books on atheism are fantastic and he is easily one of the best debaters on the subject you're likely to find. He is often obnoxious, frequently rude, sometimes far too rhetorical but ultimately delivers a tirade of criticism on religion that is so apt and vicious that it becomes the perfect anecdote to all the softly softly diplomacy we get over here so often.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Carpo wrote: »

Deities? As I said above, even after listening to his arguments I still disagree with him (I also find him quite rude and unlikeable if that helps). That being said I do not assume that arguments for contrary opinions to my own should be dismissed out of hand or have no merit. Of course, if you think that all he has to say in this regard is utterly devoid of any merit and not worth any consideration, even in it serving to improve your own point of view, then good for you.

Why do you assume I've never heard Hitchens try to defend his views? He defends his views every time he argues them.

Just going back to what you said earlier:

I was fundamentally opposed to Hitchens views on these matters. Nevertheless, I watched a series of videos on youtube in which he described and defended his beliefs in this regard. It was the most eloquent and well thought out portrayal of the view from the other side of the fence I have seen, before or since.

Sorry for the Godwin, but Hitler was a great orator. But regardless, I've heard Hitchens try to defend his viewpoint before, and he came across as a very lost and confused man.

I don't see how anything short of Hitchens renouncing his abhorrent views would change my opinion of him. Sure, he may occasionally say black is not white, but then so does just about everyone.

And to watch him in that video above try to shield poor helpless George Bush, the biggest killer of the 21st century, from a few jokes about his IQ is really disgusting. So what if most of the audience isn't smarter than Bush -- it's an observation not worth making unless you are trying to build some sort of defence for the man. And I see he is repeating that lie about Iran wanting to 'wipe Israel off the map'. This man has a pro-war agenda. He fits the neocon bill perfectly-- an ex-lefty who became bitter and angry when middle-age set it.

So what if he makes witty or cutting remarks about religion from time to time? Why should that alone be a reason for atheists to hold him up as one of its representatives?

Rev Hellfire

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Why should that alone be a reason for atheists to hold him up as one of its representatives?

Because atheism only is interested in his opinion on religion. His views on bush, war etc are immaterial.

stevejazzx

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Why do you assume I've never heard Hitchens try to defend his views? He defends his views every time he argues them.

Just going back to what you said earlier:

Sorry for the Godwin, but Hitler was a great orator. But regardless, I've heard Hitchens try to defend his viewpoint before, and he came across as a very lost and confused man.

I don't see how anything short of Hitchens renouncing his abhorrent views would change my opinion of him. Sure, he may occasionally say black is not white, but then so does just about everyone.

And to watch him in that video above try to shield poor helpless George Bush, the biggest killer of the 21st century, from a few jokes about his IQ is really disgusting. So what if most of the audience isn't smarter than Bush -- it's an observation not worth making unless you are trying to build some sort of defence for the man. And I see he is repeating that lie about Iran wanting to 'wipe Israel off the map'. This man has a pro-war agenda. He fits the neocon bill perfectly-- an ex-lefty who became bitter and angry when middle-age set it.

So what if he makes witty or cutting remarks about religion from time to time? Why should that alone be a reason for atheists to hold him up as one of its representatives?

I mostly agree with you but where I disagree strongly with you is that last bit. We should, his legacy of books and live debates should be enough for atheists to hold him as a worthy representative. You are drastically underestimating Hitchens by the way, it is clear from his many talks that I've seen that he is one of the genuine intellectuals around today (with the exception of his sometimes ill fated ventures into Stephen Hawking territory - but then who really understands that stuff anyway?).

OK-Cancel-Apply

@Steve:

Re galloway - check out his 2 hour debate with Hitchens on youtube, it's a must-see. All cards are laid out on the table, and Galloway annihilates him. This is in 2005 I think, only a few weeks after he did the same to the US senate (also on youtube), and they threw the Saddam meeting and the kitchen sink at him.

@Rev:

I understand that completely, but in a world without religion, where being an atheist would go without saying, what good are Hitchens' witticisms? He would be a pretty useless human being, wouldn't he?

philologos

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

@Steve:

Re galloway - check out his 2 hour debate with Hitchens on youtube, it's a must-see. All cards are laid out on the table, and Galloway annihilates him. This is in 2005 I think, only a few weeks after he did the same to the US senate (also on youtube), and they threw the Saddam meeting and the kitchen sink at him.

I've seen the debate, Galloway certainly didn't flatten Hitchens by any means. This was the debate in New York right?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

@Rev:

I understand that completely, but in a world without religion, where being an atheist would go without saying, what good are Hitchens' witticisms? He would be a pretty useless human being, wouldn't he?

I actually found God is not Great to be a rather entertaining take on the subject, even if I disagree with him entirely (especially when he basically shrugs off the crimes of state atheist regimes, I can't respect that). A bit of humour helps write good books. Hitchens also remains honest in the book, when referring to Catholic sexual abuse scandals, he says amongst secular organisations, and secular groups the rate has been as high if not higher.

I think Bill Maher again although I disagree with him entirely on most issues is set to a certain audience (more to the left than most, and mostly irreligious) and does employ humour.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

(especially when he basically shrugs off the crimes of state atheist regimes, I can't respect that)

Oh you mean communist dictatorships? Or shall I bring up every bad thing that was ever done by someone who believed in god and try to suggest that their belief was the sole motivation behind their evil deeds?

darjeeling

Jakkass wrote: »

Hitchens also remains honest in the book, when referring to Catholic sexual abuse scandals, he says amongst secular organisations, and secular groups the rate has been as high if not higher.

I've just scanned the relevant sections of his book, and I can't see Hitchens anywhere saying what you think he does.

Chrostopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, page 4 wrote:

I am inflicting all this upon you because I am not one of those whose chance at a wholesome belief was destroyed by child abuse or brutish indoctrination. I know that millions of human beings have had to endure these things and I do not think that religions can or should be absolved from imposing such miseries. (In the very recent past we have seen the Church of Rome befouled by its complicity with the unpardonable sin of child rape [...]) But other nonreligious organisations have committed similar crimes, or even worse ones.

So as you see, Hitchens just says that some non-religious organisations have abused their positions in perpetrating 'child abuse or brutish indoctrination'. He says nothing about how common this has been within any organisation. He also makes no suggestion - unlike your use of 'amongst secular organisations and secular groups' - that it is a widespread feature of secular organisations.

Later in the book, Hitchens comments in a little more detail on the Catholic child sexual abuse scandal. Here he says:

Chrostopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, page 228 wrote:

"Child abuse" is really a silly and pathetic euphemism for what has been going on: we are talking about the systematic rape and torture of children, positively aided and abetted by a hierarchy which knowingly moved the grossest offenders to parishes where they would be safer.

Note that earlier he commented generally on "child abuse", without detailing what he meant by it. Here he is talking specifically of rape and torture, and he makes no reference to secular organisations perpetrating these crimes.

I'm not opening the debate on secular vs. religious abuse here, just pointing out that your comment gives a misleading view of what Hitchens wrote.

.

Valmont

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

hitchens

I will confess to not knowing who Hitchens was until just now but after a summer in the states watching Bill Maher make those terrible jokes over and over again, I'm a fan now.

Valmont

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Well he's certainly an apologist for the Bush administration and the Iraq war.

Saying that George Bush isn't a retard is correct and while I'm no Bush fan, I hate hearing that Michael Moore-type bull****.

Goduznt Xzst

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I don't get why so many people have so much time for Hitchens. He's a dishonest neo-con twat.

Aside from his personality and his political views what issues do you have with his opinions on Religion?

OK-Cancel-Apply

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Aside from his personality and his political views what issues do you have with his opinions on Religion?

I don't have issues with his views on religion. What I'm saying is simple - he's an apologist for the Iraq war, a defender of Bush and a propagator of a lie that is designed to soften the public up for war with Iran, yet so many people have so much time for him and hold him in such high regard simply because he doesn't believe in god and has a witty turn of phrase, or so it seems. Maybe it's just me, but I can't bring myself to be very interested in a man like that. Plenty of other equally gifted authors out there.

Zillah

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

yet so many people have so much time for him and hold him in such high regard simply because he doesn't believe in god and has a witty turn of phrase, or so it seems.

I have interesting priorities as I become older and more jaded.

philologos

darjeeling wrote: »

So as you see, Hitchens just says that some non-religious organisations have abused their positions in perpetrating 'child abuse or brutish indoctrination'. He says nothing about how common this has been within any organisation. He also makes no suggestion - unlike your use of 'amongst secular organisations and secular groups' - that it is a widespread feature of secular organisations.

Read the quote again:

But other nonreligious organisations have committed similar crimes, or even worse ones.

By nonreligious organisations, we obviously extend this to sports teams and the like also that don't have any affiliation to belief. I don't want to get into semantics, but I found his conceding of this to be rather honest.

darjeeling wrote: »

Note that earlier he commented generally on "child abuse", without detailing what he meant by it. Here he is talking specifically of rape and torture, and he makes no reference to secular organisations perpetrating these crimes.

I don't know what could be "similar or worse" than rape and torture.

darjeeling wrote: »

I'm not opening the debate on secular vs. religious abuse here, just pointing out that your comment gives a misleading view of what Hitchens wrote.

I'm not getting into a debate either. I don't see any reason to defend the Catholic Church, I just think his conceding that secular organisations have performed similar abuse or worse is honest.

I was mistaken in terms of "high" and "higher" when the phrase was "similar or worse". It's been a few months since I've read the book.

Dave!

ooooohhhh, Dawkins goin back on the O'Reilly Factor tonight

http://richarddawkins.net/event,371,Fox-News

bnt

I don't get HBO, but I do get the audio podcast of the show, which is delayed by about a week. It's on iTunes Podcasts, add this RSS Feed to your podcast catcher, or you can download the Dawkins episode directly, here.

Dave!

bnt wrote: »

I don't get HBO, but I do get the audio podcast of the show, which is delayed by about a week. It's on iTunes Podcasts, add this RSS Feed to your podcast catcher, or you can download the Dawkins episode directly, here.

Sweet! Cheers didnt know about that

Dave!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk9cXJ1MljI

____________________________
<rant deleted by forum moderator>

____________________________

.

Turtwig

Dave! wrote: »

<Dawkins and Oirish guy O'Reilly? Didn't know he was of Irish descent??
.

ROFL:D
"Will you stop shouting at me!?"

Did Bill O'Reilly just advocate astrology, alchemy and homeopathy to be thought in the class room?:rolleyes:

5uspect

I think he did.
Also we should have a petition set up to have his claim to Irishness revoked.

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

<rant deleted by forum moderator>

Hey I don't remember saying that :pac:

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Did Bill O'Reilly just advocate astrology, alchemy and homeopathy to be thought in the class room?:rolleyes:

Don't be ridiculous, only my nonsense should be taught in the classroom. Don't mind those crackpots who believe in Adam and Eve but you should teach that the magic sky man intervened in evolution because I believe that. Sure anything else is fascism :rolleyes:

stevejazzx

Dave! wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk9cXJ1MljI

____________________________
<rant deleted by forum moderator>

____________________________

.

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

Hey I don't remember saying that :pac:

I looked at the time of the post and figured you wouldn't

Dave!

robindch wrote: »

I looked at the time of the post and figured you wouldn't

Wish I could put that down to drink, but it was mere rage.........

Zillah

I actually can't bring myself to listen to O'Reilly anymore, he's just so awful.

Valmont

If there was one man to incite me to pure, unmitigated anti-theism, it would be Bill O'Reilly. Then I think of Wendy what's her name and I remember, oh yes, I was swung to the antagonistic gang a few months ago. RAWR!

Turtwig

Valmont wrote: »

If there was one man to incite me to pure, unmitigated anti-theism, it would be Bill O'Reilly. Then I think of Wendy what's her name and I remember, oh yes, I was swung to the antagonistic gang a few months ago. RAWR!

Glenn Beck and Ben Stein for me...

Dave!

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4465,An-Open-Letter-to-Bill-Maher-on-Vaccinations,Michael-Shermer

An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

From a Fellow Skeptic

By Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine and “Skeptic” columnist for Scientific American

Dear Bill,

Years ago you invited me to appear as a fellow skeptic several times on your ABC show Politically Incorrect, and I have ever since shared your skepticism on so many matters important to both of us: creationism and intelligent design, religious supernaturalism and New Age paranormal piffle, 9/11 “truthers”, Obama “birthers”, and all manner of conspiratorial codswallop. On these matters, and many others, you rightly deserved the Richard Dawkins Award from Atheist Alliance International.

However, I believe that when it comes to alternative medicine in general and vaccinations in particular you have fallen prey to the same cognitive biases and conspiratorial thinking that you have so astutely identified in others. In fact, the very principle of how vaccinations work is additional proof (as if we needed more) against the creationists that evolution happened and that natural selection is real: vaccinations work by tricking the body’s immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given. Our immune system “adapts” to the invading pathogens and “evolves” to fight them, such that when it encounters a biologically similar pathogen (which itself may have evolved) it has in its armory the weapons needed to fight it. This is why many of us born in the 1950s and before may already have some immunity against the H1N1 flu because of its genetic similarity to earlier influenza viruses, and why many of those born after really should get vaccinated.

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, nor are they risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks, and when communities in the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years have foregone vaccinations in large numbers, herd immunity is lost and communicable diseases have come roaring back. This is yet another example of evolution at work, but in this case it is working against us. (See www.sciencebasedmedicine.org for numerous articles answering every one of the objections to vaccinations.)

Vaccination is one of science’s greatest discoveries. It is with considerable irony, then, that as a full-throated opponent of the nonsense that calls itself Intelligent Design, your anti-vaccination stance makes you something of an anti-evolutionist. Since you have been so vocal in your defense of the theory of evolution, I implore you to be consistent in your support of the theory across all domains and to please reconsider your position on vaccinations. It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection—Alfred Russel Wallace—was, but we’ve learned a lot over the past century. Evolution explains why vaccinations work. Please stop denying evolution in this special case.

As well, Bill, your comments about not wanting to “trust the government” to inject us with a potentially deadly virus, along with many comments you have made about “big pharma” being in cahoots with the AMA and the CDC to keep us sick in the name of corporate profits is, in every way that matters, indistinguishable from 9/11 conspiracy mongering. Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”), applies here: the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceutical executives, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucratic apparatchiks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings.

Finally, Bill, please consider the odd juxtaposition of your enthusiastic support for health care reform and government intervention into this aspect of our medical lives, with your skepticism that these same people—when it comes to vaccinations and disease prevention—suddenly lose their sense of morality along with their medical training. You excoriate the political right for not trusting the government with our health, and then in the next breath you inadvertently join their chorus when you denounce vaccinations, thereby adding fodder for their ideological cannons. Please remember that it’s the same people administrating both health care and vaccination programs.

One of the most remarkable features of science is that it often leads its practitioners to change their minds and to say “I was wrong.” Perhaps we don’t do it enough, as our own blinders and egos can get in the way, but it does happen, and it certainly happens a lot more in science than it does in religion or politics. I’ve done it. I used to be a global warming skeptic, but I reconsidered the evidence and announced in Scientific American that I was wrong. Please reconsider both the evidence for vaccinations, as well as the inconsistencies in your position, and think about doing one of the bravest and most honorable things any critical thinker can do, and that is to publicly state, “I changed my mind. I was wrong.”

With respect,

Michael Shermer

Turtwig

*Loves Shermer even more*:D

Dave!

I posted it before, but this is a fascinating talk by Shermer discussing one of his books
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71nsZABqoi8

Turtwig

Dave! wrote: »

I posted it before, but this is a fascinating talk by Shermer discussing one of his books
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71nsZABqoi8

Yeah seen that before, it's brilliant:D
The Q&A sesssion is missing at the end though:(