It was his best new rules yet. I've notice his anti-religions trend increase over the past few years. He started off with some mild comments about how crazy some religious people to where he is with this New Rules segment. I thought it interesting this was also the show he had Jeanine Garafolo, an avowed atheist, and Salman Rushdee, and agnostic.
The guy you linked to seemed like a nut himself. But I don't get your point, are we suppose to dismiss everything a person says if we find there's anything at all we disagree with him about? If that were the case we'd have to dismiss everything anybody ever said.
So that would mean we need to expunge all of Linus Pauling's work because he got crazy over Vitamin C in his old age.
Maher's rant against religion was perfect, if the man himself is less than perfect it doesn't change that.
Um, the guy I linked to, Orac, is a surgeon and one of the most respected of the science bloggers. (His site is now on science blogs, just like Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/)
No we shouldn't discredit all of Maher's views because he is a crackpot when it comes to science. But it sure is worth noting.
Yes, I'm a religious nut, if by religious nut you mean "Christian." I'm also a physics professor.
7 comments:
Brilliant! Thanks for posting this for us non-HBO subscribing atheists.
It was his best new rules yet. I've notice his anti-religions trend increase over the past few years. He started off with some mild comments about how crazy some religious people to where he is with this New Rules segment. I thought it interesting this was also the show he had Jeanine Garafolo, an avowed atheist, and Salman Rushdee, and agnostic.
I missed this--did he also speak rationally as to why he opposes vaccinations and why he denies the germ theory of disease?
Never heard him say anything about either one.
Oh, then look here and here where orac explains why Maher is an anti-vaccine, germ theory denying (and therefore anti-science) wingnut.
The guy you linked to seemed like a nut himself. But I don't get your point, are we suppose to dismiss everything a person says if we find there's anything at all we disagree with him about? If that were the case we'd have to dismiss everything anybody ever said.
So that would mean we need to expunge all of Linus Pauling's work because he got crazy over Vitamin C in his old age.
Maher's rant against religion was perfect, if the man himself is less than perfect it doesn't change that.
Let me guess, you're a religious nut yourself?
Um, the guy I linked to, Orac, is a surgeon and one of the most respected of the science bloggers. (His site is now on science blogs, just like Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/)
No we shouldn't discredit all of Maher's views because he is a crackpot when it comes to science. But it sure is worth noting.
Yes, I'm a religious nut, if by religious nut you mean "Christian." I'm also a physics professor.
Post a Comment