Skeptiles: Episode 5 – It’s Joe!

Skeptiles: Episode 5 – It’s Joe!

SkeptilesSkeptiles: Episode 5, for August 22 2012 in which we talk with atheist comedian, Joe Dixon, about his Atheist Bible Study commentaries on YouTube, his writting for the Buffalo Beast and Atheist Hobos.

 

CLICK TO LISTEN

 

| Open Player in New Window

 

Find us on iTunes and Stitcher by searching for Skeptiles. Listen then rate our shows on either service.

Related Links:

Joe Dixon on YouTube

Skeptiles

4 Replies to “Skeptiles: Episode 5 – It’s Joe!”

  1. Either you don’t know who Glenn Beck is or you don’t know who Sam Harris is. Calling Sam Harris the Glenn Beck of Atheism is a gross overstatement and perhaps worthy of a retraction if not an apology. There are hundreds of skeptic/atheist podcasts and if you want to be taken seriously and listened to you should know the difference between a scientist with radical views and a blithering idiot.

    1. Jangothor. You stated
      > Calling Sam Harris the Glenn Beck of Atheism is a gross overstatement

      Actually, it is a polemic. However, I consider the atheist conversation an exchange of usually rational ideas with stuff like evidence, as opposed to manufactured horseshit i.e. Fow News, so I do not hold Glenn Beck to the the same standards in the context of that metaphor.

      > you should know the difference between a scientist with radical views and a blithering idiot.

      That particular logical fallacy is called ‘appeal to authority’. Sam Harris is a neurologist. He has no experience whatsoever in Middle Eastern politics, he quotes sloppy facts from bullshit polls, has stated that the United States invades Middle Eastern Countries to spread democracy, is an American exceptionalist, and fucking clown.

      I stand by my metaphor that Sam Harris is the Glenn Beck of the New Atheist Movement.

      From a skeptics point of view, he is the equivalent of a 911 truther with a degree in geology proving the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

      When you appeal to authority, always check the credentials of said authority, and ask yourself, ‘Does it apply?’

      1. sounds like an “ad hominem” argument to me and I never said he was an authority on anything just a scientist, which he is but you obviously have had your feelings hurt by him and wtf is “fucking down”? Now comparing him to a truther is yet another fallacy. Why would you use a false analogy when you are attempting to lecture me on fallacies. I would call that the pompous ass fallacy! Thanks for replying though!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *