| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Doug Semler" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2003 10:24:08 PM |
| Object: |
Bill Maher |
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
| User: "Clayton Episode 1...The Farting Menace" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
23 Aug 2003 02:13:34 AM |
|
|
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what?
I'm not sure...hasn't he bad mouthed and made fun of atheists a few times?
The usual "how stupid they don't believe in something as obvious as God"
sort of thing...or am I thinking of someone else? I've never seen his show
but I have a feeling I saw him talking like that.
Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
23 Aug 2003 04:50:12 AM |
|
|
Nope.
"Clayton Episode 1...The Farting Menace" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f47135d$0$10358$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what?
I'm not sure...hasn't he bad mouthed and made fun of atheists a few times?
The usual "how stupid they don't believe in something as obvious as God"
sort of thing...or am I thinking of someone else? I've never seen his show
but I have a feeling I saw him talking like that.
Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Reverend Lovejoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
23 Aug 2003 09:10:11 AM |
|
|
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
He's never spoken directly on the issue of the existence of god (to my
knowledge anyway). Then again, as a political/comedic talk show host, he
shouldn't ever need to address that particular subject. In all likelihood,
he strikes me as an atheist - or at least someone who thinks personal
beliefs should be just that - personal.
He doesn't ever hesitate to vilify religion and religious belief/practice
though.
My favorite quote was on last seasons run of Real Time with Bill Maher. I
don't remember the question exactly, but it was something like "what's so
wrong with prayer?" To which he replied "Because prayer leads to stupid
*****."
--
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra teres
trial. I loved that little guy."
- Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
25 Aug 2003 09:14:17 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<jZo2b.17113$cJ5.2135@www.newsranger.com>...
In article <54de13e7.0308242158.4f0f737e@posting.google.com>, J.R. says...
"Reverend Lovejoy" <papare@remove-these-words.rpi.edu> wrote in message news:<7BK1b.1624$t57.835@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
He's never spoken directly on the issue of the existence of god (to my
knowledge anyway). Then again, as a political/comedic talk show host, he
shouldn't ever need to address that particular subject. In all likelihood,
he strikes me as an atheist - or at least someone who thinks personal
beliefs should be just that - personal.
He doesn't ever hesitate to vilify religion and religious belief/practice
though.
My favorite quote was on last seasons run of Real Time with Bill Maher. I
don't remember the question exactly, but it was something like "what's so
wrong with prayer?" To which he replied "Because prayer leads to stupid
*****."
Bill was raise in New Jersy as a Catholic. His stand on god and
religion is that he believes in a god but not in any form of organized
religion. He believes that god is more personal than that and that
the churches serve only to confuse and brain-wash.
Those aren't his exact words but they are close.
How bizarre - My bro-in-law said pretty much the same thing the other day when
we discussing the pedophile priest being killed in prison.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Bill commented several times that it was scary that he had some of the
same ideas and attitudes as some of the anti-social anti-heros of our
times. He mentioned Timothy McVeigh for one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
26 Aug 2003 09:39:47 AM |
|
|
In article <54de13e7.0308251814.10c203d9@posting.google.com>, J.R. says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<jZo2b.17113$cJ5.2135@www.newsranger.com>...
In article <54de13e7.0308242158.4f0f737e@posting.google.com>, J.R. says...
"Reverend Lovejoy" <papare@remove-these-words.rpi.edu> wrote in message news:<7BK1b.1624$t57.835@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
He's never spoken directly on the issue of the existence of god (to my
knowledge anyway). Then again, as a political/comedic talk show host, he
shouldn't ever need to address that particular subject. In all likelihood,
he strikes me as an atheist - or at least someone who thinks personal
beliefs should be just that - personal.
He doesn't ever hesitate to vilify religion and religious belief/practice
though.
My favorite quote was on last seasons run of Real Time with Bill Maher. I
don't remember the question exactly, but it was something like "what's so
wrong with prayer?" To which he replied "Because prayer leads to stupid
*****."
Bill was raise in New Jersy as a Catholic. His stand on god and
religion is that he believes in a god but not in any form of organized
religion. He believes that god is more personal than that and that
the churches serve only to confuse and brain-wash.
Those aren't his exact words but they are close.
How bizarre - My bro-in-law said pretty much the same thing the other day when
we discussing the pedophile priest being killed in prison.
Bill commented several times that it was scary that he had some of the
same ideas and attitudes as some of the anti-social anti-heros of our
times. He mentioned Timothy McVeigh for one.
Yikes! That's scary :/
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reverend Lovejoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
26 Aug 2003 03:04:37 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:TiK2b.17287$cJ5.2260@www.newsranger.com...
In article <54de13e7.0308251814.10c203d9@posting.google.com>, J.R. says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:<jZo2b.17113$cJ5.2135@www.newsranger.com>...
In article <54de13e7.0308242158.4f0f737e@posting.google.com>, J.R.
says...
"Reverend Lovejoy" <papare@remove-these-words.rpi.edu> wrote in
message news:<7BK1b.1624$t57.835@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
message
news:taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an
honorary
AQOTM? lol.
He's never spoken directly on the issue of the existence of god (to
my
knowledge anyway). Then again, as a political/comedic talk show
host, he
shouldn't ever need to address that particular subject. In all
likelihood,
he strikes me as an atheist - or at least someone who thinks
personal
beliefs should be just that - personal.
He doesn't ever hesitate to vilify religion and religious
belief/practice
though.
My favorite quote was on last seasons run of Real Time with Bill
Maher. I
don't remember the question exactly, but it was something like
"what's so
wrong with prayer?" To which he replied "Because prayer leads to
stupid
*****."
Bill was raise in New Jersy as a Catholic. His stand on god and
religion is that he believes in a god but not in any form of organized
religion. He believes that god is more personal than that and that
the churches serve only to confuse and brain-wash.
Those aren't his exact words but they are close.
How bizarre - My bro-in-law said pretty much the same thing the other
day when
we discussing the pedophile priest being killed in prison.
Bill commented several times that it was scary that he had some of the
same ideas and attitudes as some of the anti-social anti-heros of our
times. He mentioned Timothy McVeigh for one.
Yikes! That's scary :/
Why? The likes of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, even Bin Laden have some
legitimate complaints.
The difference is, Bill Maher will use his free speech to get his point
across, the others mentioned will blow stuff up and indiscriminately kill
people. I'm not worried Bill Maher will blow anyone up, because ideas don't
make you a terrorist. Being a delusional psychotic does.
--
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra teres
trial. I loved that little guy."
- Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Robinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
24 Aug 2003 12:59:27 PM |
|
|
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com>...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
He seems like a completely inconsistent atheist. He disparages
religious belief at every turn, but he imbues his comments and his
beliefs with morality. That is something a consistent atheist cannot
do. But I haven't seen any atheist be consistent. Some neurological
disorders are harder than others to overcome I guess.
Geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
24 Aug 2003 02:17:05 PM |
|
|
"Geoff Robinson" <geoffr2@aol.com> wrote in message
He seems like a completely inconsistent atheist. He disparages
religious belief at every turn, but he imbues his comments and his
beliefs with morality. That is something a consistent atheist cannot
do. But I haven't seen any atheist be consistent. Some neurological
disorders are harder than others to overcome I guess.
Well, that's a strange way to think considering everyone is born an atheist! Even the pope was an
atheist at one point. Christianity (and other faiths) are learned behaviors that then develop into
nasty habits. Unfortunately, general society accepts Christianity (and etc.) as okay, but really, we
should have rehab clinics for the damn thing!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "turk" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
24 Aug 2003 01:23:32 PM |
|
|
"Geoff Robinson" <geoffr2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:978b35e2.0308240959.4ca1739c@posting.google.com...
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:<taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com>...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
He seems like a completely inconsistent atheist. He disparages
religious belief at every turn, but he imbues his comments and his
beliefs with morality. That is something a consistent atheist cannot
do. But I haven't seen any atheist be consistent. Some neurological
disorders are harder than others to overcome I guess.
So, people can only be moral if a 2000+ year old work of fiction threatens
them with eternal damnation if they do wrong? So, xians would be out there
murdering everyone if the Bible hadn't told them they would get fried for
it? That's not morality. That's just behaving out of fear.
Sick fucking world you live in, you weak-minded, pathetic sheep.
turk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Robinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
24 Aug 2003 10:00:43 PM |
|
|
He seems like a completely inconsistent atheist. He disparages
religious belief at every turn, but he imbues his comments and his
beliefs with morality. That is something a consistent atheist cannot
do. But I haven't seen any atheist be consistent. Some neurological
disorders are harder than others to overcome I guess.
So, people can only be moral if a 2000+ year old work of fiction threatens
them with eternal damnation if they do wrong? So, xians would be out there
murdering everyone if the Bible hadn't told them they would get fried for
it? That's not morality. That's just behaving out of fear.
Sick fucking world you live in, you weak-minded, pathetic sheep.
turk
Since it would be redundant to respond to all 3 of the repliew to my
original post (at least 3 at the time of this post), I'll try to
combine them with a reply to this one.
Can people be moral if they don't believe in the reality of God (hey
we both can put in loaded questions ;P)? Sure. My point was is that
they would be inconsistent. If you believe in an objective morality
or act like you do and you are an atheist, you are being inconsistent.
I'm not arguing so much for immorality as for amorality being
logically consistent with atheism. Of which, I see none. So hopefully,
I've cleared up your misunderstanding. If you disagree, prove me
wrong.
Geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eudaimonus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
24 Aug 2003 11:48:39 PM |
|
|
"Geoff Robinson" <geoffr2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:978b35e2.0308241900.44be3cd2@posting.google.com...
Can people be moral if they don't believe in the reality of God (hey
we both can put in loaded questions ;P)? Sure. My point was is that
they would be inconsistent. If you believe in an objective morality
or act like you do and you are an atheist, you are being inconsistent.
I'm not arguing so much for immorality as for amorality being
logically consistent with atheism. Of which, I see none. So hopefully,
I've cleared up your misunderstanding. If you disagree, prove me
wrong.
You aren't so much saying that amorality is compatable with atheism, as you
are saying that amorality is _implied_ by atheism - that being a moralistic
atheist is a contradiction, and to believe there is no God and that there is
an objective morality is a contradiction in thought.
You are, of course, wrong. All you can say is that if you don't believe in
God, then you can't argue for the existence of objective morality by an
appeal to God's Will. Which is true. But you have not shown that that is
the only way to argue for the existence of an objective morality.
In short you are saying that the existence of God grounds the existence of
objective morality, ergo if there is no God, there is no objective morality.
But objective morality is grounded by _objective_ criteria, the fullfilling
of which consitutes the having of an objectively moral quality. Without a
God, there are still objective qualitites of things - just because you don't
believe in God doesn't mean you don't believe in an externally existing
reality. So you claim come to be simply that morality is _not_ a quality of
the externally existing reality, but is due to one particular part of
reality, God.
But what possible basis would you have for thinking so?
I would say that, given the existence of atheists who do believe in
objective morality, the burden in on you to show that their arguements for
the existence of objective morality presuppose the existence of a God -
merely asserting it to be so will not do, but it must in some way be shown.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Robinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
26 Aug 2003 09:06:16 PM |
|
|
What is wrong with "Human nature" as an objective basis for morality?
One can derive all the usual ethical rules from the simple objective
facts of life as a social animal.
That doesn't work because there is nothing that makes the act
inherently wrong. If human nature changes so does the rule. And
there seems to be nothing hard nor fast about morality. It would just
be a convention. Meaning, Bill Maher-type problems with hypocricy etc
makes no real sense.
Geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
05 Sep 2003 11:35:29 AM |
|
|
(Geoff Robinson) writes:
That doesn't work because there is nothing that makes the act
inherently wrong. If human nature changes so does the rule. And
there seems to be nothing hard nor fast about morality. It would just
be a convention. Meaning, Bill Maher-type problems with hypocricy etc
makes no real sense.
John Derbyshire, about whom I have had some serious words in the
past, makes a fascinating point in his most recent essay, "The
Importance of Not Thinking Too Much." Between 1901 and 1931 there was,
in academic mathematics, an event called "The Crisis of Foundations."
In this period, experienced mathematicians such as Godel and Russell
sought to forge the foundational axioms of mathematics, to pin down the
single crux around which all mathematics resolves.
They failed.
We don't know why mathematics works. What's particularly
interesting is that, for professional mathematicians, the fact that
there is no universal, ontologically sound and precise definition of
"what mathematics is" does not hamper them in the slightest when seeking
out practical applications of graph theory or cryptoanalysis, or looking
for the latest impractical solution to some historical problem.
A field of knowledge can endure a "crisis of foundations," can
be analyzed all the way down to first principles, can even be shown to
be utterly without ontological merit, without being destroyed. This is
especially true if the field of knowledge in question is essential to
some measure of human achievement. We may know know "what mathematics
is" or "why mathematics works," but we can be assured, making certain
assumptions, that it does indeed work.
The same is true of human morality. Throwing out all
undemonstrated additional entities, as Occam requires, we do find a
"morality" with no ontological underpinnings. It's just us, making it
up as we go along.
Nonetheless, it works. Maher's objections to hipocricy are easy
to understand if one takes as a base the current "human nature." Human
nature, in it's raw biological origins, doesn't change that much. It
does exist, right here, right now, in a form that we can point at. We
can say, "This is a reasonably accurate description of human nature,"
and not feel foolish saying so.
This is why democratic republics such as the United States work.
On the one hand, the Republic acknowledges that there are tendencies
towards evil that must be resisted: the tendency to indoctrinate by
force, the tendency to muzzle opposing voices, the tendency by the
powerful to *use force* to acheive its goals regardless of the free will
of others. On the other hand, the Democracy assures us that within that
framework, we have a light to make a life for ourselves that is
reasonable and, for all practical purposes, moral.
Maher's pointing out that we say one thing in that pursuit, and
do another, is a perfectly cogent activity.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
With the advance of biogenetics, it is not so much that we are losing
our dignity and freedom but that we realise we never had them in the
first place. - Slavoj Zizek
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
05 Sep 2003 12:49:48 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" says in part
The same is true of human morality. Throwing out all
undemonstrated additional entities, as Occam requires, we do find a
"morality" with no ontological underpinnings. It's just us, making it
up as we go along.
Nonetheless, it works.
Compared to what?
Other moralities might well serve us better.
Human
nature, in it's raw biological origins, doesn't change that much. It
does exist, right here, right now, in a form that we can point at. We
can say, "This is a reasonably accurate description of human nature,"
and not feel foolish saying so.
I suspect you're really describing customs taught via culture, not anything
more basic than that.
This is why democratic republics such as the United States work.
Again, compared to what?
Is democracy anything more than the least bad of the systems that have been
tried?
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
08 Sep 2003 04:32:15 PM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" says in part
The same is true of human morality. Throwing out all
undemonstrated additional entities, as Occam requires, we do find a
"morality" with no ontological underpinnings. It's just us, making it
up as we go along.
Nonetheless, it works.
Compared to what?
Compared to not having a morality.
Other moralities might well serve us better.
Any morality that isn't contingent on reality, that doesn't work
where the rubber meets the road, isn't going to serve the people who
follow it very well. It begs the question about whether or not God is
good and so everything He orders is good, or if God is good *because*,
thus far, the evidence is in that everything he has ordered is good. In
either case, unless the "general good" is served, "what is moral" is
going to get redefined in short order.
Human nature, in it's raw biological origins, doesn't change that
much. It does exist, right here, right now, in a form that we can
point at. We can say, "This is a reasonably accurate description of
human nature," and not feel foolish saying so.
I suspect you're really describing customs taught via culture, not anything
more basic than that.
No, I suspect that it is more fundamental than mere "custom."
There are instrinsic realities to human nature-- we need to eat and we
need to elminate; we need to find partners with which to reproduce, we
need a peaceful place to raise children, we need the capability to
defend ourselves from others who would take that peace away from us.
These intrinsic realities impose an exceptionally limited collection of
functional responses, no matter who you are or where you live. The
result, "what has worked," becomes tradition and morality and eventually
"the word of God" in short order.
This is why democratic republics such as the United States work.
Again, compared to what?
Is democracy anything more than the least bad of the systems that have been
tried?
"Democracy" by itself is mob rule. Republican Democracy
dictates that some things are simply off limits, even to the majority.
The difference between "least bad" and "best" is no difference.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
With the advance of biogenetics, it is not so much that we are losing
our dignity and freedom but that we realise we never had them in the
first place. - Slavoj Zizek
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
26 Aug 2003 11:39:42 PM |
|
|
Geoff Robinson wrote:
What is wrong with "Human nature" as an objective basis for morality?
One can derive all the usual ethical rules from the simple objective
facts of life as a social animal.
That doesn't work because there is nothing that makes the act
inherently wrong.
That's up to human definition.
If human nature changes so does the rule.
Human nature doesn't change.
And there seems to be nothing hard nor fast about morality. It would just
be a convention.
Not a "convention" so much as a solution to the problem of living in
society. There are lots of ways for people to live together.
Meaning, Bill Maher-type problems with hypocricy etc
makes no real sense.
The wrongness of hypocrisy derives from the moral principle of
reciprocity. If I hold *you* to a particular standard, I should hold
myself to the same standard.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
24 Aug 2003 10:44:04 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2003 10:59:27 -0700, (Geoff Robinson) posted
in alt.atheism:
He seems like a completely inconsistent atheist. He disparages
religious belief at every turn, but he imbues his comments and his
beliefs with morality. That is something a consistent atheist cannot
do.
Only if morality depends on religion, which it doesn't.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
22 Aug 2003 10:28:00 PM |
|
|
Doug Semler wrote:
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
I've heard him say a couple times that he believes in god....so he is
probably deist (if you feel the need to classify him)
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "metahuman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
23 Aug 2003 02:13:49 AM |
|
|
He's a comedian! Like Ruby Rod said, "But who cares!?"
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:taCcnYphwp3HQ9uiXTWJgA@wideopenwest.com...
Bill Maher: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what? Maybe an honorary
AQOTM? lol.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
23 Aug 2003 08:06:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:48:54 GMT, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
Doug Semler <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what?
What is he? He's severely overrated.
He's a severly overrated moderator/cutural hero/talking head. No
actual substance there that I've been able to fathom either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "idonotgetit" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Maher |
23 Aug 2003 09:17:43 PM |
|
|
You should read his book: When You Ride Alone You Ride with Bin Laden:
What the Government Should Be Telling Us to Help Fight the War on
Terrorism
I enjoyed it and certainly thought it had plenty of "substance."
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:06:40 GMT, Zen <rat@home.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:48:54 GMT, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
Doug Semler <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:
Is he atheist or agnostic, or just a deist, or what?
What is he? He's severely overrated.
He's a severly overrated moderator/cutural hero/talking head. No
actual substance there that I've been able to fathom either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
