I did not compare drunks to potheads, or at least did not intend to.
I would not think Richard Bransons life a waste nor that of Bill Maher. You are free of course to disagree but would like to know the basis of your reasoning
I’d like to comment specifically on Bill Maher. While I’m not familiar with the majority of his work, I have seen his movie Religulous; as well as some of his television appearances. Nothing I’ve seen of him so far has made me want to see any more.
Intellectual discipline and intellectual rigor begins with the humility required to work hard. The attitude that, “I need to work as hard as possible here, because otherwise I’ll make a mistake or fall prey to intellectual shallowness. Only through this relentless hard work can I maximize my chances of being right.”
From everything I saw, Bill Maher utterly lacks this humility. He strikes me as being smug and condescending to those who disagree with him. He seems to believe that he’ll be right about things not due to effort on his part; but because he’s Bill Maher. I have no respect for the kind of person who thinks this way, or for any conclusions that result from that kind of thought process.
To return to the subject of the film he’d made. He managed to find a rabbi whose views would be considered far from mainstream, both in general American society and within the Jewish community. He interviewed this rabbi as part of his movie, and interrupted him in such a way that the rabbi was prevented from finishing very many of the points he’d tried to make. Maher then stated that the rabbi had attended a “Holocaust denial conference” in Iran. The rabbi agreed he’d attended the conference but denied Maher’s characterization of its nature.
But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Maher’s characterization of the conference was accurate, what could any of that possibly have to do with the theme of the movie? Am I really supposed to consider something like that relevant to whether God does or doesn’t exist? If Maher expects his audience to be persuaded by stuff like that, it’s obvious that he either a) has no respect for his audience, or b) is himself persuaded by this sort of technique. If the latter, we should have no respect for the rigor of his thought process. If the former, he is a mere propagandist who has chosen dishonest tactics to promulgate his views.
The movie did make one good point; which was to provide information about an Egyptian religion that had existed prior to Christianity. Something like that really is relevant to the movie’s theme. But that was an oasis in the midst of a desert; with the overwhelming majority of the movie being like the interview with the rabbi.
Because politics are off-limits on this board, I will not comment specifically on which of Maher’s views I agree with, and which I disagree with. But where his opinions overlap with mine, it is because I’ve reached my conclusions independently from him; and not because I have any respect for his thought process or his opinions.
