Here comes another misbegotten idea from an obnoxious atheist. Bill Maher wants to make another documentary about religion. He wants to call it The Kings of Atheism. Yes. That’s all we need. Another atheist praising an elitist, authoritarian mindset in support of the status quo.
He really doesn’t get it.
Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre,
Au défaut d’un cordon pour étrangler les rois.
No gods, no masters.
The man is completely tone-deaf. I felt that way about his previous movie, Religulous, too. But he might have a popular formula there, since a lot of atheists seem to be looking for secular priests to lead them.
Kings .
Yep. He should have just stopped cold at “kings”, and thought.
I don’t think that most atheists are looking for “priests.” I think what they want are public figures who articulately and fearlessly advocate and defend non-belief, especially in a climate where atheists are marginalized and not taken at all seriously.
But yeah, Mahr is an ass.
The “Kings” thing didn’t bother me so much, because it’s derived from “Kings of Comedy” and it’s follow ups. What bothered me was who he picked. Seth McFarland? Smug, mysoginistic asshat. Sarah Silverman? Smug, mean asshat. Ricky Gervais? Again, smug, mean, and unpleasant asshat.
If he’s going to do something like that, he needs the best atheist comedians in the world. Stephen Fry, Dara O’Brien, and Tim Minchen would top my list. How about yours?
@danielhenschel #4
These people he mentioned aren’t exactly quiet about their atheism anyway, nor do they need to be be. Heck, Gervais seems to bring it up in any interview that last more than five minutes.
I’d like to see one about atheists in American politics a la Kirby Dick’s Outrage, just not directed or produced by Maher, though Moore seems to scare just as many of them.
I guess as atheism takes over, the tail on the “obnoxious” end of the distribution’s gonna get longer. Back when being openly ‘out’ as an atheist was dangerous, people like Maher probably got into politics or philosophy or the law — places where they could be obnoxious safely. Now that atheism is more recognized and accepted, our resident demographic of atheist assholes are raising their banners proudly. Because being the asshole in the bowling league just isn’t enough for some people.
I’m joking, I think.
Marcus Ranum @ 6
FTFY.
@danielhenschel
I’m quite happy with those three, but I’d add Izsi Lawrence, Richard Herring, & Josie Long… I’m not 100% sure they’re all atheists, but I think they are so I’ll just run with it.
Also *throws a pebble at Maher*
I think it is not that many atheists want ‘secular priests’ for themselves, but rather that they feel this is a very important modern issue that needs to be championed.
Not to say that Maher’s specific methods are ideal or even helpful…
As a self-proclaimed Padishah-Emperor of Atheism I’m insulted by this slight to my station.
“King” in the sense of “a person or thing preeminent in its class.”
The word choice might be a bit clumsy at first glance, but there is
technically no tension between “king of” and “atheism.”
In the atheist community it might be taken wrongly the way a description of
a black as “niggardly” might be.
What bothered me was the choice of the “kings.” Thankfully no Sam Harris,
Richard Dawkins, etc.; but atheism is hardly what defines Silverman,
Gervais. If he were still around, Carlin perhaps would be appropriate.
However, “atheist” is too minimal a standard. “Kings of skepticism” would
be better. Harris / Maher / Dawkins would not meet that standard. There can
be Christians who exhibit more overall skepticism than self-proclaimed
atheists.
danielhenschel @ 4
What do you have against Sarah Silverman? I guess she does the edgy humor thing sometimes, but in my experience she also mixes it up a lot with heartfelt sincerity and empathy. But maybe my read is off?
#12
Or maybe your reading is fine, and #4 is being overly acerbic. I agree with your read of her.
They are all openly atheists, so that should be fine. Must admit that I have only heard stuff by Izsi Lawrence, so I have to check out the other two.
Oh, that awkward moment when you’ve publicly promoted Richard Herring. I’ll be kicked out of the fanclub. We’re supposed to keep him to ourselves. It’s one of the bylaws.
I knew he was an atheist, and I was 95% on Izsi Lawrence, but I wasn’t really sure about Josie Long – it’s not actually something I pay much attention to except when people really advertise it.
Ah well, the genie is out, the bottle smashed, I may as well share his thoughts on the ancestry of Jesus.
And, while I’m sharing – Josie Long on Jedward & Darwin.
“Atheism” doesn’t narrow the field at all. It would be more meaningful to
find a group of Christian stand-up comedians (that have thriving careers).
Almost by definition must stand-ups tend to atheism, probably even more
than scientists, since plenty of blinkered specialists can do science
without any skepticism of anything; but comedians must question premises to
make jokes work.
Stephen Fry has complained about “political correctness” while Sarah Silverman has explained the need for comedians to change with the times.
Sorry, danielhenschel @4, I think I know which one I prefer, and it’s not the smug, entitled English asshat.
And in addition to the idiocy of naming the royalty of a movement that rejects leadership, Maher manages to also earn an extra raspberry for automatically deferring to the one that immediately suggests men. Because Maher without unexamined male privilege is like slicing your arm open without salt to pour in the wound.
@ Daniel Dunér #12
I don’t have anything particularly against her, it’s just that what I’ve seen of her has always struck me as mean and angry. Maybe I need to examine my unrealized biasses. Or maybe she is mean and angry. Either way, she’s just not someone I enjoy watching even when I agree with her.
@ Holmes #14
Always possible.
@ Tabby #17
Up to you, but for myself in the hypothetical context of championing atheism via a comedy tour, I’d rather sit through a Stephan Fry comedy routine than a Sarah Silverman comedy routine, because I would expect it to be more entertaining and more likely to deliver a convincing message. And those were the only criterion I was applying, not any sort of progressive purity test, especially not one not particularly relevant to atheism in itself.
Wait a minute, what was I thinking?
Sorry Tabby @ #17, I was being momentarily blinded by acerbicness, as Holmes said, and lost the plot on my own argument. Of course I am applying a progressiveness test if I am rejecting Seth McFarland for being mysoginistic. I guess I just need to admit that I don’t know enough about either Fry or Silverman to reject either of them on that basis. I just prefer Fry over Silverman because I find him more likable, funnier, and more erudite.
He listens to his many Huffington Post friends. To them he looks like a charming skeptic gadfly – he’s THEIR PERSONAL SKEPTIC GADFLY – and he likes that, and knows he never needs to expend much effort to actually understand anything. Oh, baby, he’s arrived, and he knows it, All that remains for him to do is sit there prominently on the awning of skepticism superstructure like the inconsequential gargoyle he is…and let the pretense and the partying merrily continue.
Bill Maher is the diarrhea produced when ignorance eats too much arrogance.
The title works even better without the comma. ;)
I don’t understand the hatred of Bill Maher.
He is liberal but not doctrinaire; he calls out Muslims but he does so to call out liberal hypocrisy for failing to stand up for liberal principles; he is one of the biggest detractors of Trump. He constantly calls out conservative bullshit.
Can someone explain without the insults please?
johnnyvento#24
Who is Bill Maher?
Does anyone outside of the USofA know the answer?
@24
Well, I mean, he is an anti-gmo, anti-vax kook, and also one of the best examples of smug douche atheist you can find in media.
If you’re against GMOs you’re a kook?
@27
Yes.
Also, funny that you only object to me calling him an anti-gmo kook, and omitting his anti-vaccine stance.
There are plenty of reasons to appose GMOs: even if you increase crop yields with roundup resistance, you are only accelerating top soil erosion. So you solve one problem only to create another one with worse long-term implications.
As for vaccines, I’ve never heard Maher talk about it so didn’t comment on it because I don’t know if you are accuate. Even so, there are risks to vaccines, although there is a lot of hysteria and misinformation. However, being concerned about vaccine safety (as well as GMOs above) does not make one a kook.
Read this article from Nature, one of the top scientific journals in the world.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/473436a.html
Meyers himself outlined the limitations of his experiment – that he wasn’t looking at molecular pathways only more global morphology regarding glyphosate.
*Oppose
There are plenty of reasons to oppose specific GMOs, but categorical opposition to GMOs as a whole is kookery.
Yes it does. If you’re going to go on air calling vaccines a scam by big pharma, ranting about the special evil of GMOs, and promote crank healers claiming to cure HIV with goats milk, you’re a kook. Any of those is enough to qualify you as a crank. Defend those points or concede he’s a crank.
You’re taking a position that I don’t think even PZ Meyers would take. I don’t think he would call all GMOs ‘safe.’ And many people just want labeling so each person can make their own decision – what’s wrong with that?
The goat milk HIV guy was a crank. I was disappointed in that. But to be concerned about GMOs and vaccines does not make one a kook. You didn’t even bother to read the article I posted.
Nor am I. For the second time, there are perfectly rational reasons to be wary of specific GMOs, but it is not rationally justified to oppose GMOs categorically.
Because it’s irrelevant to my point. Maher isn’t just concerned, he has flat out declare vaccines to be a scam by big pharma and promotes medical cranks like the milk HIV guy. Platforming and supporting medical woo makes you a crank, end of story.
*Nor would I
*declared
It depends up why, and most of those against GMOs and vaccines are really against big business seeming imposing their will upon “the little people”. That borders on being a kook, as there is an element of paranoia involved.
It is also seen in those who advocate Alt-Med. Remember, what do you call Alt-Med that works? Medicine.
On Friday’s show with Neil deGrasse Tyson Maher acknowledged that the left has anti-science beliefs like vaccines and alternative medicine. So I don’t know where you came up with your opinion on Maher Vivec but you are full of shit.