CNN on Atheists
 

Watch this. The 1st part is kinda boring, but it gets interesting in the 2nd part.

1st part

2nd part

I'm out of words. I can't believe people can be so ignorant, yet get TV time like if they were experts... At least the guy made sense.

And that guy was Stephen A. Smith. Who knew?

Dola --

...and yeah, in before the lock.

The biggest problem with athiests (as with all religions) are the people themselves. Its the idiots that make it impossible for the others to be able to co-exist.

Like I read elsewhere, ain't it ridiculous that the only one that made sense in a group with a Pulitzer Price winner and an attorney was an ESPN analyst?


Is it "illegal" to post that stuff or do you say that because some people are goign to get into heated arguments that will lead to the thread being locked.

Good job getting an atheist on that panel in the second clip, CNN. :rolleyes:

It's interesting to me that he's branching out like that, Steven A. Smith I mean. Weird. That said, the lady talking about that "they need to shut up." That said, I like seeing people in non-traditional roles in the sense that if she was some old white dude talking like that, we'd roll our eyes and tell him to go on Glenn Beck's show.

But weird that you don't have any athetists on the panel, seems bizarre to me.

When Steven A. Smith is the voice of reason, we are in serious fucking trouble.

That blonde is fugly, has the most annoying voice, and really makes no sensible argument.

Umm, I'm following standard FOFC convention.

Seriously, I don't have a problem with the subject matter at all. No problem with heated argument, either. But, if past history is any guide, there is the slight possibility of this thread devolving into personal attacks and indignation.

Ditto. And he definately was the voice of reason. It was scary that he was the only one who spoke about accepting others' viewpoints while the two women were basically saying they should go underground.

Btw, what liberal bias can CNN possibly have if they put this panel? Unless they were trying to make anti-atheists look like morons.

What was interesting to me in watching that clip was realizing just how much of Steven A. Smith on ESPN is an act. And by act, I mean the over-the-top obnoxiousness of the way he presents his opinions.

Agreed on all points.

As Richard Dawkins points out, we all are atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon, Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Some of us just go one god further.

The problem with that clip is they basically define an "atheist" as someone who sues to enforce the separation of church and state, and then get two Christians and a Jew to argue about whether or not these people should shut up. It's an absurd debate, to the extent you can call it that.

"Believe what you want to believe, but don't impose on my right to want to have prayer in [public] school."

Hahahahaha.

And as others pointed out, the two women "experts" were complete jokes. Nothing but red herring after strawman after...take your pick, I think they brought out about every fallacy you could in just under 5 minutes. That's actually kind of impressive. And I was surprised that Smith could actually talk without emphasizing every other word.

What's so funny about that? Everyone is entitled to believe(or not) in whatever religion you want. I should have the right to pray in school if I choose -- why is it that athiests are the only ones that get their way in the debate? My praying doesn't infringe on your "right" not to pray.

Actually, you have the right to pray in school... you just don't have the right to compel everyone else to also pray.

I don't think there's been such an attempt in recent years. People have wanted a moment of silence or an opportunity for personal prayer in the beginning of school, but that's been struck down too.

Nowhere I've seen. Every place I've ever seen or heard of has allowed a moment of silence.

I don't have a problem with you showing up and defending organized religion. But I will say with about 99.9% certainty that you didn't watch the video because we are making fun of the two idiots (in reality three idiots, but we will let Steven A. off the hook for one night) who appeared on CNN without any valid points whatsoever and just talked complete nonsense. Maybe you have some valid points, fine. But we are entitled to laugh at what a complete train wreck both of these ladies arguements were. You really should watch the video and then leave this thread and take your pro-religion views somewhere where we might actually respect them. This thread is about making fun and only making fun.

Yes, and only this one time.

What? Really? I had NO IDEA this was a parody thread. :rolleyes: I wasn't commenting on the video (which I haven't watched), I was responding to Easy Mac's posting, and we were having a civil conversation.

In other words, since you want to be rude: I wasn't talking to you, asshat. Go away.

Wow, glad you could show up, continue with your divisive nonsense posting, and put me in my place. You are a class act.

Yeah, your opinion of me keeps me up at night.

Seriously, my conversation with Easy Mac or anyone else who want to discuss it has nothing to do with your posts. You want to make fun of the video? Go right ahead. My posting isn't stopping you or anyone else from doing it. Get over yourself.

Anyway ...


I'm been looking for some court ruling I read on an athiest page about moments of silence being struck down by the Supreme Court, but I haven't found it yet. If that's the case, I'm fine with it.

civil convo? bleep bleep bleep bleep:p (and thats just because you're a wvu fan:p)

Ahhh. Now I feel more at home ...

Bleep Bleep Bleep yourself, non-West Virginia fan. :)

Aaaaaaand we're PLAYIN' THE FEUD!

My state is like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. better than WV:eek:

No worries. I figured maybe you were at work or someplace else where you couldn't see the video. And I thought I pretty said in a pretty civil manner that you might have some good points but you really were in the wrong thread as the video looks like a couple of my 6th graders trying to debate religion. You misunderstood me, no big deal.

Ok, if that's the case, I apologize for the asshat comment.

Oh yeah?

OH YEAH?

Well, my state ... um ... er ... WE HAVE MORE MOUNTAINS!

Ok, I got nothin'.

She's actually a regular on the Howard Stern show - she's a pretty hardcore militant jew/anti-islam chick. I don't think she ever figured out that the show was goofing on her.

Just from the thread title, I immediately figured there was a thread called "Atheists on CNN" somewhere down the board & this was a parody thread.

Of course everyone has the right to believe what they want, but that's not what she said.


No one says you don't have the right to pray in school. Everyone has the right to pray to whoever or whatever they want at anytime and anywhere. And if anyone tries to infringe on that right, I'll be standing right next to you opposing them. But what you don't have is the right to to have public schools lead the prayer (which is what she was asserting, thus the reason it's funny).

EDIT: She said it several times as a belief and once stating it as a right, so she might have just misspoke that one time.

dola,

The blonde chick: "The child doesn't know what's going on." talking about the case about "under God" in the Pledge. Yeah, blondie, that's exactly why parent's are allowed to sue on behalf of their child. (Lewis Black) HELLO? (/Lewis Black)

The black chick: "What does an atheist believe. Nothing, right?" UGH! NO! Wrong. Atheism and nihilism is NOT that same thing.

The black chick: "They need to shut up!"

I wonder if she would like it if a panel of white people stood around and said that all black people needed to shut up.

Sigh.

"We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson."

I listened to the radio the other morning and some christian was believing that red light cameras were the work of the Anti-Christ (no exxageration).

So yeah......

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Did she win a Pullitzer Prize for her article call "Atheists Should Just Shut The Hell Up Because They Don't Believe In Anything!"

Seriously, any respect I had for people who got Pullitzer Prize's just dropped a couple of notches.

Fair! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?

Man, I love that movie :D.

Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of.

Nice marmot.

I believe my throat hurts.

Wow. What spectacular ignorance and hypocrisy. Imagine a panel of three white people debating the question of whether black people are being "too militant." "We're a white nation!", "They've got the vote, what else do they want?", etc. Kudos to Stephen A. Smith for at least gesturing toward reason.

Fortunately, CNN seems to have recognized how vile the segment was(I suspect it had something to do atheists not "Just shut[ting] up!"). Tommorow, Paula Zahn's show will rerun the initial segment, this time followed by an interview with Richard Dawkins. Of course, it'd be more appropriate to follow it with a panel consisting of, say, Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett (in the Stephen A. Smith role) debating whether Christians are too militant.

The first segment was okay. The second was horrible. I half expected the rest of this to go, "Tomorrow, Paula Zahn's show will rerun the initial segment, this time followed by more airtime devoted to Anna Nicole Smith."

I'm at work and could only skim-watch the first two videos, but wow. They'd never realise it, but these wackos are doing a better job promoting atheism than they are sledging it.

Apparently, plans have changed. According to Dawkins:


The massive editing is problematic enough, but then having Hitchens represent atheists 1 vs. 2? I have no doubt that he'll have an easy enough time shredding their arguments, but why maintain the incongruity? And why have to representatives that are not only atheists, but aggressive antitheists? More importantly, why have two old, white, british guys when the topic (at least, originally) dealt with atheism in the United States?

Ah, well--I suppose it's better than the lot that the religious crowd got the first time around.

Apparently this is the new segment they ran after people suggested they include an atheist in a discussion of atheism.