This guy was birthed in a chamber to be fill the job of "Man Who Bill Yells At".
I consider myself an atheist. A statement of fact can be delivered in an insulting manner. His whole pretense of, we're not trying to insult anyone, comes off as completely disingenuous. I think the billboard more inclined to piss off believers that it is to sway agnostics or token churchgoers. Furthermore, O'Reilly has said far dumber things this this. Needs Atheism tag.
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...
This atheist is fucking retarded. How dumb do you have to be to make Bill O'Reilly look intelligent & reasonable?
This asshole is riding the fame of his billboards to asshole infamy. I cannot stand this guy and his smug jackass demeanor, and people love inviting him on their show now just to show their mushbrained viewers how horrible atheists are.
He is one of cable news's most cherished contributors: The professional strawman who doesn't realize he's a strawman.
They both seem like douchebags, but is sure is interesting that the religious morons that put up signs claiming non-Christians will burn in hell are not questioned on the show for being far more insulting.
To be fair to the atheist, your message is only heard in America if you make it douchey.
|Robin Kestrel |
The tides were the most perplexing natural phenomenon Bill felt his viewers would be able to understand. He was going to go with "dark energy" or "quantum entanglement", but wisely dumbed it down a bit.
Silverman could have done a better job at explaining this as a message to nonbelievers that they are not alone and should not feel ostracized. Instead of telling how the Alabama "scams" ad was meant to draw attention to an upcoming atheist convention, he plays right into Bill's spinning it as an insult to believers.
I really was expecting an immediate explanation of tidal phenomena, considering the flabbergasted look on the guest's face. I guess I'm too used to my atheist spokespeople being erudite, scientifically literate people.
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.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|