Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
For the record, atheists are NOT "open to conversion". Agnostics are. She's an idiot and a fraud. But then again, what else would you expect from Faux News. It's their "bread and butta" as she so eloquently put it.Oh and the irony that the network that didn't cover the inauguration of the POTUS to cover Dumbo flying away in a helicopter calling mainstream media "biased" is not lost on me.
She's an atheist in the same sense that I'm a Christian. What a blatant attempt to whore her book to the religious and she's well aware of the selling power of that 80% of the nation. Her language is purely pentecostal, wishing for the rapture etc....If she was truly an atheist, she would have been able to repsond to Hannity's assertion that an atheist refuses the chance of any God being a possibilty. That atheism equals something from nothing ad nauseum....
I agree she is a fraud. No one who is Atheist or Agnostic goes around promoting, defending and writhing books about how great any religion is. Especially one that vilifies you, for having your own views.
<span>A person can be conservative, republican, and Atheist (or Agnostic). However, if you don't believe in god, as she says several times, there can be no motivation to promote christianity.(which she also says that she does) S.E. Cupp is pretending to be an outsider to give a false sense of credibility.</span>
She was too busy promoting religion and her book to defend her own so called atheist views. You are correct her next book will be about how 'wrong' she was to doubt christianity.
Does Sean have any original thoughts or is he just a parrot of mis-information and stereotypes?Scratch that. I know the answer.
That was embarrassing! Phew!
On her BIO page of her website, she lists Dinesh D'Souza as one of her favorite "Thinkers and Doers"
Sigh...where would one begin?
She's on her way to the very top. She knows how to. She has no firm morality established within herself ( anything goes). She's a cunning bitch. She's a very attractive, sexy woman.Her succulent lips are made to blow job any time, any place. She knows how to read and how to write. She can praise Jahweh, Jesus, Buddha and Zen X - at the same time and, finally...She looks like Sarah Palin and, there is no better promotional factor than that !God bless her sweet face and her glasses.. She could be a future senator, or a governor or, a member of the congress. Sky is the limit for the people like her.Yippee !
she is a plant. a fraud. a hack. this is fishy as hell.
I couldn't get past "Stephen Hawkins." This is stupid interviewing stupid. She looks like someone gave her a stereotypical conservative makeover with those glasses and the tie.
What a wonderful couple they are. An union made in heaven.Wisdom and intelligence on one side and a journalistic skills, quick wit and a personal charm on he other.Only Faux News can achieve such level.Hannities and O'Reillyes rule the planet earth.Hallelujah !
Incorrect. Atheists are not closed-minded to conversion. We're more open to evidence than agnostics (who have already decided a-priori that evidence is useless.) It's precisely because we DO think evidence is important that we are atheists. But that's also what makes us open to conversion - if there was any real reason to convert and any actual evidence you could use it to convince an atheist but not to convince an agnostic - who has already decided that evidence isn't a factor that can sway someone one way or the other.
I should clarify that I'm talking about actual atheists here - not tis woman who pretends to be one.
For the record, your definitions suck.Atheists are people without a belief in the existance of gods.Agnostics are people who say it's impossible to actually know if gods exist.And then there are people who think agnosticism is a point on the line between theism and atheism.It simply isn't.And whether or not you're open to "conversion" by means of evidence, argument or brain damage is completely tangential to all of the above.
an atheist but
That's not an atheist.
This could be a poe's law tactic. She HIGHLIGHTS and drives HOME the deterioation of thesim, it's a subtle message jammed right down the theists throats. They let her say it with their blessing. She paints them as weak and loosing the "battle" by the nature of her argument.By saying these ridiculous things as a self described atheist on the "side" of those with the persecution complex, she gets to compare and contrast differing religions and their supidity while people like Hannity eat it up. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing, she makes the christians/theists look like stupid morons and atheists seem more "fair" in a way."God is like PORN", those statements are fantastic and he lets her say stuff like that!They "think" she is one of them when she tells them no, belief in your god is unfounded but they let her point out ridiculous claims side by side. It is much like the value of comparative religion, just let all those ideas sit side by side to see how stupid they actually are.She doesn't endorse any of those religions as good per se, but highlights the conflict in a transparently silly way. A clever application of Poes law I think.
Martin, nothing in what you posted contradicted what I said. (Although with the shitty way comment nesting works here, I can't tell if you were replying to me or not since it won't indent another level even if you were replying to me.) The "it's impossible to actually know" DOES imply "I'm not open to looking at evidence" - because it's saying evidence won't help decide the issue - which is exactly what I meant. The idea that atheists are not open to conversion but agnostics are is to imply that atheists made up their mind without caring about the merits of the information available - which is false. It's just the opposite. If there was a good reason to believe in a god, that good reason would entail evidence. An atheist simply says that lacking that evidence, not believing in god is the sensible default hypothesis - a default hypothesis that could be proven wrong by evidence. Thus the person with that sort of stance (the atheist) is convertable, if such evidence showed up and thus religion stopped just being a bunch of people lying to us. On the other hand, a person who thinks that the idea that knowledge of god existing or not is impossible denies the importance of this evidence-based thinking and therefore can't be convinced even if it was true that there's a god. To the agnostic, evidence is impossible anyway even if god did exist.
Female Kirk Cameron incognito
They don't believe in chances but like to play with lucky in lotery.
I can see it now, two or three years from now, after "C. CUP" :D shows up several times on Faux News... she's gonna Convert and See the Light! Hallelujah!
Dits and Dunts: Talking on TV.
I replied to the same post you did, Steven.But as long as we're splitting hairs:No, agnosticism doesn't necessarily mean an unwillingness to change ones mind. You might consider something impossible today and be shown wrong tomorrow. Agnosticism in itself does not demand dogmatism.And conversely, atheism does not require of the atheist to have "found" his or her atheism through any kind of reasoned deduction. It's simply a destination. Not the way you got there.But I think we can both agree that it is the way people arrive at any belief (or lack of one) that is important. The reasons for it, so to speak.Little irks me more than an atheist "groupie" who comes off like the point of the exercise is finding a new crowd to be a member of. Present company excluded.
If she believed what she's saying shouldn't her message be directed to the left and atheist, not a bitch session in print form with those who already agree with her? She is one kind of fraud or another.
Yeah there was something very fake and creepy about that conversation. I want them gone? Well, I'd say it's a very good business model because in 25 years these issues will have been beaten to death. <span>Dennett was of the opinion that within 25 years religion will command little of the awe it instils in people today and their fascination for it will disappear. He said the spread of information through the Internet, television and cell phones will generally and irresistibly undermine the mindsets requisite for religious fervour.</span>
No you don't get it! She is an atheist! She doesn't believe in Thor, Zeus, or any of those gods!
I have suspected that this would be the next tactic of Christians for some time now. Crypto-theism. Pretend you're a non-believer so as to cultivate an air of disinterested objectivity among your target audience the marginally christian public. Then write books about how "super awesome" all of Judeo-Christianity's accouterments and secondary beliefs are without actually directly endorsing the core supernaturalist dogma itself, sit back and watch the money roll in as credulous pillocks snap up your latest offering while endorsing it as proof that "See?? Even atheists agree with us!!". It doesn't have to make sense. It only has to make the religious and uncritical feel good about their beliefs. Do not doubt the level of cretinous deceit that Christians will sink to so they can spread their ideology. Love the tight shirt/tie sexy librarian look too, lol. Coercion by seduction, conversion by stealth.
Well if that doesn't give away the sham, I'm not sure what would.
Martin, the definition of agnosticism I was working under was the same as the one you gave - that of a person who claims the question is inherently unknowable. That's NOT just a statement of the current state given the current evidence. That's a dogmatic claim about any and all possible evidence that ever might exist.
<span><p>Pretty sure the glasses are fake. There is no visual distortion when comparing the image behind her glasses from what is 'next to' that. i.e. her face is aligned perfectly as it goes from behind the glasses to 'not' behind the glasses. </p><p> </p><p>At least as far as I can tell. </p><p> </p><p>So if those aren't real, she's wearing them for effect.</p><p> </p><p>If she's wearing glasses for the effect, then I'm pretty sure she's 'wearing' other things as well. uh, her "atheism"?</p></span>
Another way to look at it might be that it's all planned."I'm an atheist - what is the best way to make money on the gullibility of the reilgiious? hmmm.... "I know, I'll write a book from an 'atheist' standpoint and tell the Theists that they are so right and I am so wrong. "Sure-fire way to make Millions!"And if this is correct, we know in Michael Behe's and Dinesh D'Souza's next debates (whatever happened to the idiot "IC" Behe?) they'll heavily quote this book to try to slam their atheistic counterpart.
God, that so weak. MenInFroxnews must really think their viewers are idiots. She really is as thick as pigshit.
Wow FOX thinks they are clever scamming people by making a fake strawman atheist to advocate for their theocratic views.
yeah she maybe a fraud, but she is nice to look at. Mute is the best way to watch Fox.
she may be lying for jesus but she is still hot.
Clue #1 that she's faking:"TODAY I'm an athiest. TODAY I don't believe in a Christian God". Somebody told her to make some $$$ by posing as an athiest and repenting her way back into the fold when she was done.Also, she looks like what a conservative would wear on halloween if told to dress up like an athiest. And she's sounds like a Fox-news parrot.
Hasn't that been Progressive Christianity's tactic for decades?
i'd hit it
She accused the liberal media of fear mongering. Awesome.She is only hot until she opens her mouth. To speak, that is.
She's an atheist the same way that Steven Colbert is a conservative. I have to give her credit for knowing how to dress on FOX news, though. FOX loves to put attractive women on TV. It distracts their viewers from the idiocy of their message.
Lol she's so fuckin' fake.I bet the bitch would say she's a black jew nazi if she could get on tv again.
shes hot ...
Tits or GTFO.
If you dig into her background a bit apparently she's the daughter of a good friend of Sean Hannity and makes regular appearances on his show (and other Fox News shows) as a "pundit". I'm not sure I get how her degree in art history or her years of ballet training make her an expert on religion. I haven't read the book, but here columns are generally terrible. They're sort of rehashed republican talking points and tend to be mostly fact and research free. Is she in it for the money? I guess? I don't think she's making that much money.However, I've never met an atheist with similar opinions. She seems to accept Christian values completely, but rejects religion intellectually? It's weird. Here's a quote:"As an atheist myself, I like to think I adhere to the same Judeo-Christian values that most of religious America does. It's an understanding of and a respect for these values that keeps me moral....But that doesn't stop secularists from regularly putting belief and nonbelief on the same plane."So she's an atheist but not a secularist? It's hard not to assume she's being insincere.
At 2:56 the interview says "Most Americans believe in god. That resonates with the American people". If you put religion and atheism completely aside than it still is a bad argument. Just because a lot of people believe in it doesn't make it true.
This woman is totally FAKE. This is obviously Faux project to make atheist straw man to present religious point of view. This is really disgusting >:o