https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5kHO0Jyfk

Wow, that was some takedown.

Some people are just more stupid than others.
We don't have the same brains. There's plenty of variation in brainpower, all the way from Einstein on one hand and Sarah Palin on the other.

Maher: America is a dumber country with this kind of stuff. But now I understand Europe is getting dumber.

Dawkins: 28% of people believe humans lived with Dinosaurs. IOW, 28% of Europeans get their science from the Flintstones.

Maher: Take Mormons for instance...

Dawkins: Joseph Smith made it up in the 19th Century, in 17th Century English. I mean it has Charlatan written all over it. I don't know how anybody can believe it.

How the hell did I ever believe something that is so laughable? Such an obvious scam, made up by such a charlatan?

I don't get Dawkins, he has such a sneering way of belittling anyone who thinks different than himself. Can their be a more conceited human on the planet? Maybe Hitler? He's seriously misguided.

Big words and book learning just doesn't convince me.

He is a pompous ass and so is Maher. Yeah, they are right about some things, but dialing down the narcisssism would be nice.

Yeah, because if you don't like their personalities, then their message is worthless.
Oh, wait, that's some kind of fallacy...hmm...

Me, I like people who call bullshit bullshit, and don't tap dance around it because some people "sincerely believe it." :)

I had never heard the word before (ESL) and had to check it in a dictionary.

I'm so ashamed I ever joined the morg that I never even mention the mistake if I can help it.

Even if Dawkins is wrong on God, he's right about evolution. It is the greatest show on Earth. Taking away from that with a dogmatic creation myth is dumber than Atheism could hope to be.

Greatest Show on Earth is an excellent overview of evolution and well written. Dawkins has written some truly insightful books.


That said... I'd say this to address poopstone's gut reaction to Dawkins' inflammatory personality:

Sometimes the messenger is an ass. Sometimes the messenger happens to use big words. Sometimes the messenger is someone you think is nice.

The challenge is to separate the message from the messenger and fact check the message independently. The facts don't care about the personality of the person who may or may not be presenting them accurately.

Refuting with facts wins more respect than ad hominem attacks against the nasty messenger. Being likeable does not necessarily make someone right. Just ask the people who were charmed by Joseph Smith's facts.

It is possible to be right without being a narcissistic ass. Dawkins is knowledgeable about his own field but is no expert on religion or history. Maher is an entertainer,an anti vaxxer with a huge ego. I often agree with him, but he is still an ass.

Yea, as soon as I found of Maher was with the anti vaxxer crowd I lost all respect for him. Truthfully I don't know all the details, but any movement that can count Jennny McCarthy (and a British doctor who has since had his Medical License revoked) as one of their prominent leaders is a movement made for appealing to idiots.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2016 07:24AM by midwestanon.

I wouldn't call this representation of his stance an "anti-vax" stance. It seems more "anti-stfu." He seems more concerned that any hint of questioning the pharma party line is enough to earn the derision seen in this thread.

Even the title below labels him as an "anti-vaxxer," but in quoting him, they don't seem to have read or absorbed what they posted as his statements.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/24/bill-maher-anti-vaxxer-the-real-time-host-sides-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-during-bizarre-interview.html :

'Then, Kennedy made an interesting admission.'

“I am very pro-vaccine,” he said. “I had all my kids vaccinated and want to see government policies promoting full-coverage vaccines. The only way to do that is to have safe vaccines, and to have a credible regulatory process with regulators with integrity, and we don’t have that today.”

Yes, Kennedy said he mainly takes issue with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which he says “controls the field” and is a “cesspool of corruption that’s been completely taken over by the vaccine industry.”

'But following his anti-CDC rant, something strange happened: Maher agreed with Kennedy on his anti-vaxx stance.'

“Why can’t we have a kind of grand bargain on this? It just seems like we’re calling each other kooks and liars,” said Maher. “It seems like common sense that vaccines, even thimerosal, probably don’t hurt most people—if they did, we’d all be dead, because they’re in a lot of vaccines that we all took—but some do. Obviously some minority gets hurt by this stuff. I don’t understand why this is controversial? Why we have this emotional debate about something that—there is science there. It astounds me that liberals, who are always suspicious of corporations… and defending minorities, somehow when it comes to this minority that’s hurt, it’s like, ‘You know what? Shut the fuck up and let me take every vaccine that Merck wants to shove down my throat.’”

-------------------

It seems that if it is written enough times it will be accepted as fact, even though the opposing facts are in plain sight. There is more to the story than labeling him "offended" by vaccines. It seems he is offended by not being permitted to even question The Book of ________. It is plastered online that he is "anti-vax."

Having read the story, and seeing the repeated characterizations made by the authors, I would have to agree that an "anti" label is a powerful tool for shutting down the thought processes of True Believers.

I now have a new life "rule" that I plan on testing. Every time that I see the label "anti" assigned to someone's position, I am going to first question if it's an emotional appeal designed to shut down the thinking and conversation.