• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bill Maher trashes Noah Arc/Bible.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fantastic! I love this man. As a matter of fact, if I was just a little more STOOPID, I'd feel the urge to worship him. I could write up a great religion with Maher as the central figure. I bet a few folks here would actually think its true considering what they are already capable of believing.
 
Retro Rob said:
Good. Stalinism didn't work out to well, did it?



So I guess atheists aren't insane, either...or advocate killing people for what they believe:

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”

Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.

Click to expand...

I think Mao had some sticking power in China, no? Pretty sure atheism is the majority over there still.
 
My only problem with Maher is that his show on HBO generally has the biggest group of fucking morons they can find to argue with the most slanted "facts" they can drum up. They have to be actors. There is no way there can be that many people who are that stupid.
 
smackababy said:
My only problem with Maher is that his show on HBO generally has the biggest group of fucking morons they can find to argue with the most slanted "facts" they can drum up. They have to be actors. There is no way there can be that many people who are that stupid.
Click to expand...

I like the super hot chick with the glasses that he gets on occasionally to be the token republican. :wub:

KT
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
MY sense of humor is the only RIGHT sense of humor!

Also, MY favorite colors are ONLY good colors!

MY favorite music is the ONLY good music!

MY favorite foods are the ONLY good foods!
Click to expand...

Not at all, you're also perfectly welcome to relish your flat soda and bad Adam Sandler movies. Just as I'm perfectly welcome to call them flat, tasteless and not funny; and wonder what mental defect you suffer from. 🙂
 
Last edited:
KeithTalent said:
Apparently not. 😛

KT
Click to expand...

I thought Keith made a great point.

Bill Maher does have the right to free speech here, and that's to be respected and honored, but I honestly found it to be condescending and unnecessary. All quips like this do is breed intolerance, and that's the last road we as individuals want to travel down.

And to be consistent, if Bill had gone off about Atheism, I'd have said the same thing.
 
Ventanni said:
I thought Keith made a great point.

Bill Maher does have the right to free speech here, and that's to be respected and honored, but I honestly found it to be condescending and unnecessary. All quips like this do is breed intolerance, and that's the last road we as individuals want to travel down.

And to be consistent, if Bill had gone off about Atheism, I'd have said the same thing.
Click to expand...

Why do people keep bringing up free speech in these discussions? Why do you feel the need to add that as an aside before giving your opinion as though his right to free speech adds to the relevancy of his argument? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have to agree with him even a little bit. It just means you can't stop him. There's no reason to bring it into either this discussion or any other about someone who said something controversial.

I know it's off topic, but this is a pet peeve of mine.
 
momeNt said:
What about people who belief in scientific fact to legislate anything on the rest of unwilling people? This is the flaw in democratic (the authority, not the party) thinking, which makes it equally as preposterous as thinking you are better than people who have religious beliefs. Both religion and those who believe in man based authority believe that what they think is what other people should think, and they use whatever mechanism they can to institute their beliefs.

I take all this back if you are an atheist and an anarchist, as you have seen the error in pushing your beliefs in all spectra.
Click to expand...

Science is not the opposite of Religion.

If Legislation is based upon Scientific Fact, it's because the legislators prefer Knowledge over Dogma.
 
Retro Rob said:
Good. Stalinism didn't work out to well, did it?



So I guess atheists aren't insane, either...or advocate killing people for what they believe:

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”

Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.
Click to expand...

That is a Quote Mine. In Context he was talking about Extremists bent on violence, aka Al Queda types.

He responds to this criticism here.


My discussion of killing people “for what they believe” (pp. 52-53 in The End of Faith) (link to here)
The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any other I have written:
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.
​
This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. To someone reading the passage in context, it should be clear that I am discussing the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be, “Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back alive? Absolutely not.
- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.RRINNF9E.dpuf


http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.RRINNF9E.dpuf
 
sandorski said:
That is a Quote Mine. In Context he was talking about Extremists bent on violence, aka Al Queda types.

He responds to this criticism here.


My discussion of killing people “for what they believe” (pp. 52-53 in The End of Faith) (link to here)
The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any other I have written:
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.
​
This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. To someone reading the passage in context, it should be clear that I am discussing the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be, “Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back alive? Absolutely not.
- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.RRINNF9E.dpuf
Click to expand...

Harris himself said he made it easy to misinterpret him, and he did this by not hiding his hatred and subsequent genocidal view of belief.

Such a repugnant human being, but obviously he doesn't lack his corner of apologists.
 
Retro Rob said:
Harris himself said he made it easy to misinterpret him, and he did this by not hiding his hatred and subsequent genocidal view of belief.

Such a repugnant human being, but obviously he doesn't lack his corner of apologists.
Click to expand...

BS. He didn't say he did it on purpose. That's just your twisted view on it. Especially given that the line is clearly removed from the Context it was used in.

In context he was talking about the most violent extremist Theists. Is it really repugnant to say they might need to be killed?

What is more repugnant: Harris making that line or those who are attempting to twist it to make Harris look like an evil bastard?
 
sandorski said:
BS. He didn't say he did it on purpose. That's just your twisted view on it. Especially given that the line is clearly removed from the Context it was used in.

In context he was talking about the most violent extremist Theists. Is it really repugnant to say they might need to be killed?

What is more repugnant: Harris making that line or those who are attempting to twist it to make Harris look like an evil bastard?
Click to expand...

Whatever.

Back on topic, I am certain that there are far more people in both the scientific and religious community who accept the flood account than that there are those who are brave enough to identify, publicly, because of assholes like Maher and Harris.

This is the exact same as when atheists and gays were stigmatized so badly that people equated them to child molesters and pedophiles so much so, that the overwhelming majority stayed "closeted". If fact, atheists haven't completely overcome that today.

This is nothing more than reverse bigotry by the "enlightened" against those who are different, but human, nonetheless.

Guess you haven't paid attention to history, because you're damn well repeating it.
 
Retro Rob said:
Whatever.

Back on topic, I am certain that there are far more people in both the scientific and religious community who accept the flood account than that there are those who are brave enough to identify, publicly, because of assholes like Maher and Harris.

This is the exact same as when atheists and gays were stigmatized so badly that people equated them to child molesters and pedophiles so much so, that the overwhelming majority stayed "closeted". If fact, atheists haven't completely overcome that today.

This is nothing more than reverse bigotry by the "enlightened" against those who are different, but human, nonetheless.

Guess you haven't paid attention to history, because you're damn well repeating it.
Click to expand...

Whatever? So you are just going to continue thinking Harris is calling for some nefarious action based upon a Quote Mine and ignore the context of that quote?

That's just dishonest.

If you were in a situation where you could stop an act of terrorism, would you not do it?
 
Retro Rob said:
Harris himself said he made it easy to misinterpret him, and he did this by not hiding his hatred and subsequent genocidal view of belief.

Such a repugnant human being, but obviously he doesn't lack his corner of apologists.
Click to expand...

I thought the typical US-based evangelical tends to get all horny at the thought of killing any number of muslims? Seems legit, doesn't it?

I certainly see that from certain so-called Christians on these forums.
 
zinfamous said:
I thought the typical US-based evangelical tends to get all horny at the thought of killing any number of muslims? Seems legit, doesn't it?



I certainly see that from certain so-called Christians on these forums.
Click to expand...


That's just the bad ones. "True" Christians would never behave so.
 
sandorski said:
Whatever? So you are just going to continue thinking Harris is calling for some nefarious action based upon a Quote Mine and ignore the context of that quote?

That's just dishonest.

If you were in a situation where you could stop an act of terrorism, would you not do it?
Click to expand...

By ordering a mass genocide of terrorists? You're bound to murder some innocents in the process, as evidenced during drone strikes in the past.

I would never be in a position to stop terrorism because we simply cannot stop terrorism -- there will always be terrorist hiding somewhere producing more terrorists.

At any rate, he hates religion. Your apologetics doesn't change that fact.
 
Retro Rob said:
By ordering a mass genocide of terrorists? You're bound to murder some innocents in the process, as evidenced during drone strikes in the past.

I would never be in a position to stop terrorism because we simply cannot stop terrorism -- there will always be terrorist hiding somewhere producing more terrorists.

At any rate, he hates religion. Your apologetics doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...

He's not talking about Mass Genocide, that's your Strawman.

I said an "act of terrorism", not Terrorism as a whole. Would you not stop it if you had the chance?

So what?
 
GagHalfrunt said:
Maybe the people with common sense will shut up and move on when the idiots who believe in that biblical bullshit have the courtesy to do the same. Until then, having a few spokespeople for intelligence and common sense is not such a bad thing.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that Bill Maher is a spokesman for intelligence and common sense?

Really! That is crazy.
 
SlitheryDee said:
Why do people keep bringing up free speech in these discussions? Why do you feel the need to add that as an aside before giving your opinion as though his right to free speech adds to the relevancy of his argument? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have to agree with him even a little bit. It just means you can't stop him. There's no reason to bring it into either this discussion or any other about someone who said something controversial.

I know it's off topic, but this is a pet peeve of mine.
Click to expand...

The bold part is why freedom of speech is important in this country.

I'm trying to take a step back and look at the big picture with this Bill Maher thing, because I see a lot of anger and contempt just on these message boards in response. I stated that his message, while intending to be funny, breeds intolerance, and intolerance leads to persecution, and I stand by it. If he had made that very same bit mainly about Jews instead of Christians, he'd be in terribly hot water because of it.

We have enough intolerance in this country as it is; we don't need any more of it, but in my response to it I'm also going to respect the right for Bill Maher to say what he did, and I'm going to act appropriately in my response. I feel that's a right we need to remind ourselves that we all have a little more these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top