1. Comment #194905 by Elli on June 17, 2008 at 11:41 am

Colbert claims to be catholic, but why do I always get the feeling he is a closet atheist?

Both him and Miller - it is like they know every reason why religion is rubbish and god a myth but they believe anyway. Both are really likable people though, I must say, and geniuses at what they do.

Other Comments by Elli

2. Comment #194916 by Ascaphus on June 17, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I've never seen this Colbert person before. Can't say that I'm impressed. One liners are funny, but why pretend it's a discussion?

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

3. Comment #194917 by mordacious1 on June 17, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Yes, Cobert (irish catholic, not french) is all over the maps with his belief system. He states that he was raised in a catholic family that taught him to intellectually question even his religion. I wonder if he has ever got any answers.

Other Comments by mordacious1

4. Comment #194928 by someonefree on June 17, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Ascaphus,

Colbert Report is a parody of Fox News in the US, specifically Bill O'Rielly's show.

Other Comments by someonefree

5. Comment #194929 by Elli on June 17, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Ascaphus, Colbert's show is on a Comedy network in the US and his TV character is a parody of right-wing talk show hosts, like Bill O Reilly. His ridiculous interviewing style is a deliberate effort to mock the "Fox News" personalities. And I am sure his smarter guests are all aware of this... although it sure is funny when he interviews people who take him seriously.

EDIT: in my best Don Adams impersonation: "missed it by that much"... what "someonefree" said!

Other Comments by Elli

6. Comment #194936 by AtheistJon on June 17, 2008 at 12:36 pm

I very much dislike this genre of "humor". Maybe it's because Colbert, etc... all have leftie agendas...

They engage in debates where they say serious things and anybody who objects or presents an opposing point of view are automatically ad hominem'd off the stage for lack of a sense of humor.

It's a method of monologuishly presenting debate rhetoric in the guise of humor. When Dennis Miller would present his act, the lefties hypocritically attack him as a political comedian... but if you attack these Colbert types, then you are an idiot right winger. It's an annoying aspect of left wing politics nowadays.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

7. Comment #194939 by debaser71 on June 17, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Here in NY many people are catholic. It means little in terms of religion and has more to do with culture. Very much like secular Jews.

Just sayin'

Other Comments by debaser71

8. Comment #194947 by AtheistJon on June 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

I have to say that this episode of Colbert was horrible. I much preferred the serious radio interview with Kenneth Miller that was posted a couple of days ago. Much more in depth and interesting.

You can't be a serious person and go on this kind of show. What a waste of everybody's time.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

9. Comment #194948 by SilentMike on June 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

I actually like Colbert. Problem is the movie keeps freezing. I hate this streaming nonesense.

Other Comments by SilentMike

10. Comment #194952 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Neither link worked for me but I hunted it down:
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0020_Miller/talks/colbert-miller.mov

Other Comments by Frankus1122

11. Comment #194955 by SilentMike on June 17, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Thanks Frankus!

Other Comments by SilentMike

12. Comment #194967 by JRD7 on June 17, 2008 at 1:20 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

Ascaphus - That's for you.

I have to say I'm a fan of the colbert report, even as a Brit. I download the shows on a weekly basis and enjoy catching up at the weekend.

AtheistJon - I think we're all guilty of taking life (and ourselves) a little too seriously. Can't you can't enjoy a satirical dig at the ludicrousness of the American right?

Political comedy is always agenda-biased, or do you very much dislike Bill Hicks and George Carlin, too?

Try and find the episode when Dinesh D'souza is a guest, guaranteed raise a smile.

Other Comments by JRD7

13. Comment #194973 by obscured by clouds on June 17, 2008 at 1:29 pm

AtheistJon
You can't be a serious person and go on this kind of show. What a waste of everybody's time.

Then I'm sure you don't want to miss this, ;)

http://richarddawkins.net/article,210,Stephen-Colbert-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-Colbert-Report-Richard-Dawkins

Other Comments by obscured by clouds

14. Comment #194981 by AtheistJon on June 17, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I did see that (back when it was aired). It was a total waste of Richard's time. Did you honestly find Richard's appearance on Colbert a valuable use of time?

I don't think I have seen a worse application of Professor Dawkin's wonderful communications abilities than an appearance on the Colbert show.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

15. Comment #194987 by AtheistJon on June 17, 2008 at 1:46 pm

AtheistJon - I think we're all guilty of taking life (and ourselves) a little too seriously. Can't you can't enjoy a satirical dig at the ludicrousness of the American right?

I would agree with your first statement, but as for the second. I find the ludicroussness of the left equally as humorous as that of the right... perhaps more so, because the left takes itself way too seriously. The right is used to being attacked by comedians and hollywood actors... For me, it's more fun to see comedy about the religious right/left (and this wasn't it! This was crap...). When these stupid shows spend 100% of their time making fun of secular Republican political issues, I find the comedy seriously unfunny.

Political comedy is always agenda-biased, or do you very much dislike Bill Hicks and George Carlin, too?

Political comedy, is by definition so, but are you saying that all comedy is so? No, not always. Is Monty-Python political? What about Sponge-Bob Square pants (or the Simpsons?).

OK, there is definitely a place for political humor don't get me wrong, but the funniest stuff is non-partison... and when a comedy show spends every episode in a partisan mocking of one political party, it just gets really really, redundant.

George Carlin is funny.

But, my point is, why go on to a comedy show to discuss a serious issue such as fundamentalists trying to force religion into the US education system? Seems like a loser of an idea.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

16. Comment #194993 by cafeeine on June 17, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Don't ignore the audience people reach through shows like Stewart's and Colbert's. Miller has commented how amazed he was that nothing had convinced his students that his work on the Dover trial was important than when it was mentioned on the Daily Show. Apparently its what a segment of the audience is watching and you have to go there if you want to reach it. Dawkins did it, Behe did it, and so now Miller (whom if I'm not mistaken this was the second time on the show...)

Other Comments by cafeeine

17. Comment #194995 by AtheistJon on June 17, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Again, I think it comes down to a question of taste which can't be objectively debated anyway. I found this show unappealing... but cafeeine, you are probably right... you do probably reach a much larger audience this way. Not sure that it's worth it...

Other Comments by AtheistJon

18. Comment #195011 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Well, I thought it was f*cking brilliant.

This will be more effective in kicking ID in the nuts than most of the stuff here.

*ducks*

If only because it was high profile, fun, patriotic, trashing of know-nothing dunces by a couple of guys who were "Catholics". The guy who was licensed to say it, said the bible is not science. The effect on kids will be tremendous.

I've been disappointed with Colbert in his own show. He seemed on form tonight, however, giving exactly the right nutty feeds for Miller, without knocking him off course.

Ace

Other Comments by phil rimmer

19. Comment #195026 by Dhamma on June 17, 2008 at 2:55 pm

It's really annoying such an intelligent person as Kenneth cannot give up all his ridiculous beliefs.

I can't make up my mind whether I think he's good for us or not? Sure the christians may actually listen to him because of his religious stance, and make more accept the evolution, but will he help us in any way? For the atheist cause he may be a problem for us, if people think you can accept the evolution AND be religious they will make that "transition" instead of the one we really want them to make(lose god).

My hope is that he's the first step on the way for many and eventually they dare to take the full step. What do you think?

Other Comments by Dhamma

20. Comment #195034 by HourglassMemory on June 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Ken's book is called "Only a Theory".
It wouldn't be very smart of Dawkins now to pick a similar title for his own book on the evidence for Evolution.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

21. Comment #195037 by Szkeptik on June 17, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Well, Miller couldn't get too many points across. Colbert kept interrupting with one liners and jokes and that was very annoying. Well, guess it's primarily a comedy so they have to keep the humor flowing.

Ken seems to be more active recently. There was the radio interview with him just a few days ago and now this. Is he out advertising his book or something?

Other Comments by Szkeptik

22. Comment #195040 by hexhunter on June 17, 2008 at 3:28 pm

What's with the afront to Colbert, he and his progenitor, Jon Whatever-his-name-is from the "daily show", are the most reliable and probably most watched news shows in America...

Other Comments by hexhunter

23. Comment #195051 by Spinoza on June 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm

a valuable use of time?

You must be a Pragmatist, or an Engineer.

Other Comments by Spinoza

24. Comment #195054 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Comment #195026 by Dhamma ,

My hope is that he's the first step on the way for many and eventually they dare to take the full step. What do you think?

I just posted something about this on another thread:

People like Ken Miller argue that things are as they are because that is how God made them at the most basic level. The rest just naturally flows from a universe with elements in it that were created with the properties they have.
That God is a non-interfering God. He has just set things in motion.
I don't really have a problem with that type of god. It doesn't matter if that type of god exists or not. What is the difference between saying 'non-interfering god created everything' and 'everything just is'?

I think Ken Miler does not believe in a non-interfering god. He is a Catholic so his god interferes in human affairs and He had a purpose in mind when He set creation in motion.
I think there is no evidence for the interfering god who designed the universe as it is so we could come about and worship Him.
So I think that Ken Miller is on the right track. The evidence for evolution is obvious. If the same rigor of thought were to be applied to the notion of god he would discover there is no need or evidence of a interfering designer god.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

25. Comment #195066 by bentleyd on June 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I think most any public exposure is a good thing. RD and Ken Miller both got to plug their books. Stephen Colbert played the stereotypical right wing nut quite well, and made RD and Miller come off looking good.

Other Comments by bentleyd

26. Comment #195082 by Rational_G on June 17, 2008 at 5:03 pm

AtheistJon -

Dude. It's a comedy show. And yes it's anti-right wing - which I quite enjoy.

Colbert gets good guests - like Dawkins - who wouldn't be exposed to American TV audiences otherwise. Underneath all the kidding, he is quite good at providing exposure to quality authors - which "serious" American TV shows for the most part ignore. So it's a good thing. And it's funny.

Other Comments by Rational_G

27. Comment #195085 by Stephen Maxwell on June 17, 2008 at 5:08 pm

"I don't think I have seen a worse application of Professor Dawkin's wonderful communications abilities than an appearance on the Colbert show."

Did you ever see Dawkins on the BBC's The Big Questions?

The thing about Colbert is that his show is a comedy show. His viewers are often high school or college students who are interested in those kind of subjects, especially when it's in a light-hearted setting. I mean, it's on Comedy Central!

Look at The Big Questions. It was on the BBC for ffs!! On a Sunday morning. It was an enjoyable, entertaining watch but for all the wrong reasons. Objectively it was pretty disturbing and a big waste of his time. A lot of the other guests were too far gone in their delusion.

Let's not forget that Dawkins is the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. I don't think doing shows like the Colbert Report was a bad idea in the slightest. I would bet that people became interested in his book after his appearance.

Colbert is hilarious. I highly doubt Dawkins went onto the Colbert Report expecting it to be serious. He's done shows like that since (that Marcus Brigstocke show for example). I'll bet he knew what he was getting into there also.

Btw, Colbert's interview on the O'Reilly Factor is top notch! Check it out.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

28. Comment #195097 by Maximoose on June 17, 2008 at 5:58 pm

I think we forget that shows like the Colbert Report and Daily Show actually criticize the gov't in power. The shows are designed to critique the leaders in order to point out faults and misdirections and keep the public thinking about where their country might be going.

Here in Canada, shows like the Royal Canadian Air Farce and This Hour Has 22 Minutes are constantly tearing out everybodies ineptitudes with the focus on the current elected body.

I'm willing to bet that should Obama become president, then these shows will start to poke at the Democrats. The reason why it always seems against the right is because that's who've been giving the most material these years. Do you remember when Kerry was running? You didn't see anyone pulling punches.

I'm not saying that the shows are politically neutral, but I think that they are still dedicated to pointing out bullshit no matter which side is spewing it.

Other Comments by Maximoose

29. Comment #195134 by justaperson on June 17, 2008 at 7:29 pm

1. Shows like the Colbert Report are entertainment.
2. Celebrities like to be on them because they get air time which in turn will increase book sales.
3. Sometimes people who previously didn't know anything about a guest or his or her beliefs will learn something that will make them think. So they serve a small but significant consciousness-raising function.

Other Comments by justaperson

30. Comment #195139 by MorituriMax on June 17, 2008 at 7:33 pm

One thing about Colbert, he is a master at responding to something instantly.. no matter what you throw at him, he has a funny comeback.

So when I am looking for a good laugh, he's the go-to guy.. still not sure how comitted he is in his religious belief, whether he is an atheist or a catholic.

Ken Miller was fantastic.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

31. Comment #195152 by DrShell on June 17, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Sam Harris did Colbert's show too. (And it's also funny.)

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=62694

Other Comments by DrShell

32. Comment #195184 by Traytheist on June 17, 2008 at 8:58 pm

AtheistJon:

Dawkins' appearance on The Colbert Report actually helped me look into my agnostic/deist views and led me to atheism.

After hearing his thoughts on the issue, I realized how much sense it made and it was as if a light went off in my head ; "Of course, it's all so simple, how could I have missed it!"So, I went out and got the book, I began coming to this site, and I continued to look for other ways to interpret what I thought I had all figured out. So perhaps appearing on these shows has some benefit.

Granted, I wasn;t even remotely close to religious, but maybe there are others who have had similar 'conciousness-raising' due to these appearances.

I'm pretty much the perfect example of justaperson's point.

Other Comments by Traytheist

33. Comment #195204 by MaestroTj on June 17, 2008 at 10:13 pm

AtheistJon:
relax, its just a late night comedy show. A few laughs before you turn in. The audience is a very good demographic for advertisers and publishers. I read somewhere that the daily show and the Colbert report where a bigger boost for book sales than a bunch of the more serious talk shows.


more on topic.
Colbert is religious by the way. He teaches Sunday school (the catholic version of it). He's along the lines of ''god started evolution'' as far as I've read.

If a guest goes along instead of fighting him the guest can make an excellent plug for his/her book/movie/play. Miller did alright, he tried hard to be funny.

Other Comments by MaestroTj

34. Comment #195219 by DalaiDrivel on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 pm

If Colbert is religious, I'm surprised he highlighted the circuity of his arguments explicitly in the Harris interview.

"What part of my loop don't you want to jump on?" he asked Harris.

Either he knows what he was talking about, and was trying to plug Harris' book, or provide his arguments for him...

Or else his foot is horrifically bloody at this point.

Don't get me wrong. I found it funny until I read MaestroTj's comment above, and thought,

"Oh dear, oh dear."

My sense is that Colbert attempts to make his muses look stupid and not himself. I really hope he is not a Catholic.

Anyways, Harris should have gone for the jugular there. Laid on a plate. No need to even be funny...



I could easily envision Colbert as a closet atheist, or just someone who doesn't care about religion really.

Atheists, in order to call themselves atheists, must consciously confront questions of philosophy, existence, and metaphysics, and likely take an interest in them.

These investigations are obviously not a prerequisite to living a happy life.

You can be a Jew or a Catholic and not think what it means. A non-practising, or cultural theist, in other words.

You can't blame some people if they recoil from such specific contemplation as "what it means" or "is it true," even in the context of their own holy books that they imbibe on a regular basis.

I like philosophy very much personally. If I didn't, I doubt I would even entertain the topic of God. I might even still uncritically go to Church out of habit.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

35. Comment #195220 by paulwwww on June 18, 2008 at 12:03 am

I for one really enjoy Colbert. His humor may somewhat mask the issue, but it is mainstream and this issue needs more of that. And I for one am not opposed to religious study (preferably comparative religious studies) in school, just not in the science classroom.

Other Comments by paulwwww

36. Comment #195226 by j s bach on June 18, 2008 at 12:15 am

Total waste of space.

Other Comments by j s bach

37. Comment #195243 by gd_edi on June 18, 2008 at 1:10 am

Frankus1122, your link is from Miller's first appearance on the show.

Other Comments by gd_edi

38. Comment #195305 by Duff on June 18, 2008 at 3:41 am

Atheistjon,
You have succeeded in depressing me this morning. What a downer you are. Cheer up, pal.

Other Comments by Duff

39. Comment #195314 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 4:03 am

Atheist Jon: Surely Colbert's target isn't so much right-wingers as the media itself?

Edit: I can't get the link to work at the moment so I concede I could very easily be missing the point.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

40. Comment #195379 by AtheistJon on June 18, 2008 at 6:20 am

Atheistjon,
You have succeeded in depressing me this morning. What a downer you are. Cheer up, pal.

Duff, I am perfectly happy. Especially when I'm among friends. Your post obviously wasn't meant to extend the hand of friendship, so it doesn't make me too happy either.

Anyway, I was just expressing my own personal preferences. I'm sure there is political humor that you find stupid, too. Not knowing you, I won't judge... There's no such thing as objective humor. And, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I guess you are just trying to say the same thing as me but reverse polarity. However, instead of calling you a downer, I'll take the high road and just say this. To each his own.

Humor is largely a matter of taste which is a subject I try to avoid debating.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

41. Comment #195391 by 3legcat on June 18, 2008 at 6:48 am

dhamma said

It's really annoying such an intelligent person as Kenneth cannot give up all his ridiculous beliefs.

why annoying? isn't freedom of thought more enjoyable than reassurance?

frankus said

I think Ken Miler does not believe in a non-interfering god. He is a Catholic so his god interferes in human affairs and He had a purpose in mind when He set creation in motion.
I think there is no evidence for the interfering god who designed the universe as it is so we could come about and worship Him.

at a debate held in NH last year (between him and some discovery institute dudes) ken miller was asked about gould's thought experiment of rewinding evolutionary history and playing it over again and ken argued that big brained self conscious primates would be an extremely unlikely species. so he is clearly in the camp of unguided evolution based on his understanding of the evidence. people like miller, collins and wolpe place a very strong emphasis on the difference between knowledge and belief. you and i don't see this sharp distinction, but then we have no need to. perhaps?

Other Comments by 3legcat

42. Comment #195421 by Edouard Pernod on June 18, 2008 at 7:39 am

Atheist Jon,
Who cares if it's "liberal"? Are you really so rigid that you insist upon compartmentalizing the world into either "liberal" or "conservative"? What goes on in a laboratory? Does a scientist say "oh no, that research is too liberal for me, can't do it" or "I can't find any value in that theory because it was proposed by a conservative"? I like to approach life as if it were a laboratory, "liberal" and "conservative" are just stupid labels that change with the times. In the 1860s I would have been a staunch conservative Republican, whereas now I am a Liberal democrat, and yet my values are the same. The only thing that has changed is fickle politics, malleable public opinion and shoddy uninvestigative journalism, which all contribute to the defining of your "liberal" or "conservative" of the moment.

As far as I can tell, a Christian was on a popular TV program promoting evolution and bashing intelligent design. How could you possibly find anything wrong with that?!? That same Christian was singlehandedly responsible for demolishing ID in Dover and handing a victory to science and true intelligence, helping to set a very important legal precedent and greatly damaging the reputation of ID and its advocates. I think everyone here owes the man a debt of gratitude regardless of our disagreement over religion, and regardless of whether we're too set in our ideology to recognize that there is value in Miller going on a "liberal" spoof news commentary show.

We can be myopic and arrogant and piss on Miller and piss on Colbert, but Miller has done very important research not only into evolution, but has contributed a great amount of research in the functioning/creation of phospholipid bi-layers in cells, and Colbert has given much needed attention to people whom we idolize such as Dawkins and Harris, so perhaps we should get off our self-righteous high horses and recognize the contributions to our cause by Miller and Colbert, even if we don't agree with their politics or personal religious beliefs.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

43. Comment #195426 by Dhamma on June 18, 2008 at 7:53 am

3legcat:

Yes, but I didn't make a stance on freedom of thought either. I just find it annoying someone as intelligent as himself hasn't come to a better conclusion. He has all the rights to think what he wants and express his opinions if he wants. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he one day comes out as an atheist.

Other Comments by Dhamma

44. Comment #195455 by AoClay on June 18, 2008 at 8:49 am

If you guys saw the teacher fired for wizardry, that's in my hometown.

Other Comments by AoClay

45. Comment #195467 by Lucas on June 18, 2008 at 9:27 am

Colbert is indeed a practicing and fully believing Catholic, or at least that is what he says when NOT playing his public persona. (Look for the NPR interview from 2005). I also think he is a highly intelligent man with a top notch bullshit-o-meter. I would venture his religiosity is probably more complex than any of us can conjecture.

Other Comments by Lucas

46. Comment #195484 by jwdink on June 18, 2008 at 10:12 am

I can't make up my mind whether I think he's good for us or not? Sure the christians may actually listen to him because of his religious stance, and make more accept the evolution, but will he help us in any way? For the atheist cause he may be a problem for us, if people think you can accept the evolution AND be religious they will make that "transition" instead of the one we really want them to make(lose god).

Why exactly is the goal to get everyone to be atheists? I think removing the toxic forms of religion is a much more important and meaningful goal. Surely the non-existence of God is a good philosophical/scientific discussion, but it's not exactly essential that intelligent moderates like Miller give up their faith. His God is the least egregious.

Other Comments by jwdink

47. Comment #195502 by Sleepyd104 on June 18, 2008 at 11:02 am

Just thought you should see this for a bit of insight on who Colbert really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfiL2hpnmZ0&feature=related

His character is over the top believer, but he never really lets on to what he really thinks.

Other Comments by Sleepyd104

48. Comment #195557 by DalaiDrivel on June 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Lucas,

For a top-notch bullshit-o-meter, I'm surprised Colbert's isn't tuned to something as painfully simple as a circular argument.

Maybe he wants us to laugh at him and not with him.

Must be the case...

I hope he had a good long think about that one when he got home. For once, Bill O'Reilly has company.

Furthermore, complexity of religiosity amounts simply to redefinition. Faith is an exceedingly simple, pray-by-numbers affair when reading one's Holy Book. It really leaves no room for complexity. It is obvious that they are meant to be read literally, just as they are meant to be understood as the products of a barbaric, bygone society, with corresponding ideas and language.

Can Colbert's bullshit-o-meter pick that up perhaps?

Colbert redefined God in the Harris interview. Happily, Harris DID catch his interviewer on that one.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

49. Comment #195806 by daevos on June 18, 2008 at 8:58 pm

i dont believe some of these comments. Colbert is hilarious. Some of you folks must be utterly devoid of a sense of humour.
Sadly, this forum seems to have gone downhill of late, get off your high horses, learn to laugh at the world or at least try not to be so bloody grim.
sheesh.

If we atheists want to be a positive influence on the world, lets start acting like it.

Other Comments by daevos

50. Comment #195883 by Dhamma on June 19, 2008 at 1:12 am

jwdink:

Well, my ultimate dream would be that everyone becomes atheists, yes, but my primary goal is also to remove the toxic forms of religion, or the religions themselves as I find them holistically toxic. If Miller will only make them accept the evolution, yet keep their religion, I don't see how the toxic forms have been removed. Miller is, after all, a catholic, which means he must believe in the judeo-christian god. If the muslims accept the evolution, yet still think Allah will give the terrorists 72 virgins in heaven, not much have been won.

If he would make some drop their religious belief and instead believe in a deity that won't dictate how we should behave, it'd be great, but since he's still a catholic, I doubt it.

Other Comments by Dhamma