Bill Maher Show and Intolerant Atheists
Bill Maher may hold strange views, but one thing we admire him for—he’ll state his views straight out, without any attempt to sugar coat it or show tact (at least he’s honest and proudly proclaims his views, in contrast to others who attempt to hide it. He’s consistent in his atheist far-left elitist views). Recently on his show atheist S.E. Cupp appeared, whose latest book titled “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity” created some interesting discussion, and displayed the paradox of atheism.
That show generated the following response from one of S.E.’s fellow atheists.
- Religious people are deluded, regardless of whether they’re good or bad people.
- Religion is often bad in and of itself, even without people doing bad things in the name of it.
- Teaching ignorance (via Creationism) is a form of child abuse, whether it’s done with the best of intentions or not.
Atheists generally hold themselves up as defenders of tolerance, masters of free-thinking and logic, free from all bias and dogma they associate with religion. Yet notice the assumptions from someone likely considering themselves a free-thinker:
- God doesn’t exist (“Religious people are deluded”), in other words atheism is a fact by his personal fiat. Of course atheism is illogical, so this point by itself displays a lack of logic and critical thinking.
- Religion is bad in and of itself, apart from any actions. That displays a clear bias and a lack of free-thinking as ideas are already assumed good or bad apart from any proof or logical analysis. Who gets to make these fiat rules? What makes this person the arbiter of things good and bad? As atheism has no basis for morality according to Dawkins, those kind of absolute moral statements are quite bizarre; without any absolute standards (as Dawkins noted), nothing can be stated as good or bad.
- Evolution is true by fiat without any scientific base behind it. We’ve written much on evolution, and consider evolution’s case closed as it has no experimental scientific evidence for its foundations. It’s taken on faith, without proof. You’re free to believe in the philosophy of evolution and the beginnings of the universe if you wish (“first there was nothing, and then it exploded; from the goo to the zoo to you”), but it’s not science.
Another “tolerant free thinking atheist”—the very definition of oxymoron (self-contradicting phrase).
People are free to believe whatever they want, but it’s rather bizarre (and illogical) to hold yourself up as a beacon of free-thinking, tolerance, and logic, while promoting such absurdly illogical views that don’t stand the smallest scrutiny (atheism), displaying intolerance toward others (religion is bad in and of itself) and attempting to proclaim absolute morality while simultaneously denying it exists, and even attempting to silence and censor opposing views you don’t believe in (teaching alternative theories is child abuse).
That’s not very tolerant, free thinking, or logical—it’s too bad atheists miss the irony of their illogical position.
Copyright © Darrin Yeager 1998-2010

Comments
Bill Maher has strange views
Bill Maher has strange views ? But he doesn’t believe in talking snakes, or talking burning bushes, or 900 year old men walking around collecting millions upon millions of different species of insect and animal, or men living in giant fish. He doesn’t kill his neighbour if he sees him working on a Sunday, or stone women, or gays. He’s looking for evidence before believing blindly in a magical being in the sky, I’d hardly call that strange. The fact that a person could believe anything without one shred of identifiable evidence is what I would call deluded. Faith is just another word for ignorance.
Thanks for the perfect example
You’ve used the classic “Ignoratio elenchi” logical fallacy, more commonly known as Red Herring:
We’re talking about atheist views and how contradictory and illogical they are — don’t bring religion into the discussion (or try to change the subject). Can you defend the atheist’s poor logic or not?
So then you reject evolution as a hypothesis lacking scientific evidence, correct? You must reject it if you’re going to be consistent to the principle you just stated (or just accept being deluded). Evolution is case closed as it just doesn’t have any evidence for its foundations. As the article notes, this is another atheist error in logic when they state they’ll reject something they don’t see evidence for (God), but accept another they don’t have evidence for (evolution and beginnings of life/universe).
Will you apply your principle consistently, or just when you feel like it?
Inconsistencies, contradictions, and poor logic in atheism is the point of the article, and your comment proved the point perfectly by its logical errors.
A comment on one thing (your
A comment on one thing (your analysis of Bill Maher here is pretty much spot on)…
Evolution does have evidence supporting it, a lot of it, in fact. It has more evidence supporting it than Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism and Relativity, and only a bit less than the Germ theory of disease. We also have quite a bit of evidence for the big bang theory. Those theories are so dominant because of the fact that they’ve made predictions of discovery (big bang: microwave background radiation distribution, distribution of matter in the universe, evolution: DNA, among many others), and the entire field of genetics fully backs the basic principles of the theory of evolution in its discoveries.
We don’t, however, have a lot of good evidence for abiogenesis.
Want to hear a better fairy tale?
Well okay, Mr. Richard Dawkins? Or perhaps one of his apostles? This is fairy tale of atheism 101. Once upon a time, billions and billions of years ago, “nothing exploded.” Out of some miracle, the universe strangely started to develop a lot of characteristics of fine-tuning (wow is that an accident? You say; of course it is!). Fast forward to a few billion years, life appeared out of nowhere (how did that happen? You say; Thats not important! It just did) All of sudden, something started to slither out of the ocean (considering evolution is missing thousands of missing links to make that possible). Then that became some primitive primate by some miracle again. Then 100,000 years ago that become you. Then you guys lived happily ever after. I will not partake in a belief that believes “I’m a monkey’s uncle.” But, if you like to believe in your delusions, then be my guest. Cause we all know it takes more faith to believe in evolution then in God.
Want to hear a better fairy tale?
Well okay, Mr. Richard Dawkins? Or perhaps one of his apostles? This is fairy tale of atheism 101. Once upon a time, billions and billions of years ago, “nothing exploded.” Out of some miracle, the universe strangely started to develop a lot of characteristics of fine-tuning (wow is that an accident? You say; of course it is!). Fast forward to a few billion years, life appeared out of nowhere (how did that happen? You say; Thats not important! It just did) All of sudden, something started to slither out of the ocean (considering evolution is missing thousands of missing links to make that possible). Then that became some primitive primate by some miracle again. Then 100,000 years ago that become you. Then you guys lived happily ever after. I will not partake in a belief that believes “I’m a monkey’s uncle.” But, if you like to believe in your delusions, then be my guest. Cause we all know it takes more faith to believe in evolution then in God.