Tuesday, November 30, 2010

David Silverman vs. Megyn Kelly Over Christmas Billboard


November 30, 2010 on Fox News
Visit American Atheists at http://Atheists.org

34 comments:

  1. Good ole 'you're an atheist so shut up!'

    ReplyDelete
  2. She's just another Fox News douche bag!

    ReplyDelete
  3. could she let him finish one point?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd like to know where he gets his 99% (or was it 90?) of atheists are in the closet.  If they're in the closet, then how do we know?  I'm guessing there are a lot, but 90s seems pretty high.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know.   But to be fair those surveys are anonymous.  It's alot easier to say your an atheist-agnostic for a survey than it is to the bulk of your friends, family, and co-workers who are Theists (even people who I thought wouldn't take it badly took it pretty bad)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why do they keep going on Fox? They are only giving the right ammunition to use against us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow, this woman is mean, and a great example of how biased Fox is. The tone of her voice throughout the entire interview is so condescending and immature.

    At the end of the interview, she fails time and time again at trying to twist David's words.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LOLOL
    "Why impose your belief on a big billboard..."

    First of all, atheism isn't a belief.

    But second of all, they get to impose their beliefs on me all the time, in ways much more dramatic than a possibly offensive billboard. These wackos vote against the rights of others, and then they try to silence us when we put up an ad? Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  9. what a weird bunch, those fox news bunch are

    ReplyDelete
  10. The thinking theistNovember 30, 2010 at 6:06 PM

    <span>If Atheism is not a believe what is it? If you are trying to imply that its just responding to the truth, then hey welcome to the club friend!</span>
    <span>Second, please dont think that the interviewer's attitude are applauded by all christian's (is she even a christian...). I am a christian and billboards like these make me smile, not rage. You dont dispel truth by putting up a billboard.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  11. What a weird bunch those fox "news" bunch are.  Their biased, Don't kow how to shut the hell up when someone speaks and the funny thing about it is, they ask the questions and before the person even has a chance to answer they pop out another question from their Crap infested mouths, I'm just going to stop watching anything with fox news on it, cause it's not news for one thing and another thing it's' a waste of time, their idiots and they will remian that way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. TTA. Atheism is only a belief in that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. And it doesn't demand a belief in the supernatural.

    I'm beginning to like David Silverman. He seems to relish going on MenInFrox News and gives it to them between the eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Christine from CanadaNovember 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM

    It's absence of belief. 

    Not my quote, but saying atheism is a belief is like saying not collecting stamps is still a hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't like David Silverman. He doesn't explain the real problem with religion. He skirts around points like 'because it's not the truth' or 'because its's unfair'. This isn't good enough. You wouldn't see Hitchens or Dawkins using those reasons.

    He needs to be more brutal with his reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Christine from CanadaNovember 30, 2010 at 7:19 PM

    Sorry!   I just replied to "thinking theist" (above) with the same analogy, without reading yours first.  My apologies rockbank!

    ReplyDelete
  16. For a 'thinking theist' you don't really think much.  Have you even ready the bible?  I'm not talking about the popular verses, either.  To think as a theist, you should probably read and study the entire liturgy for many years.  (The problem with this tact is that you'll probably end up like poor Bart Ehrman)

    "You don't dispel the truth by putting up a billboard"?

    What truth?

    That Jesus was born on December 25th?  When most historians acknowledge that he was born at some time after winter in the spring?

    Or how about the truth that the major stories in the bible were hijacked from many of the previous belief systems of the day.  i.e. virgin birth, ascension, etc.

    Besides, Atheism as a label wouldn't have existed as a word if crazy bronze age myths hadn't started people thinking there was a magical sky fairy ensuring we don't have sexual relationships in the wrong position.

    ReplyDelete
  17. - Christine -
    Yes, but you get the point for replying directly to him.   :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. You're right, but he's in training and he will get better with time.  It's taken Hitch a long time and a lot of writing to become the master wordsmith and modern historical savant that he is.

    God I hope we don't lose him too soon.

    (Did I just say that?)   :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. <span><span><span><span>'If Atheism is not a believe what is it?'</span></span></span></span>
    <span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span>
    <span><span><span><span>Well the obvious reply is "If atheism is a belief then baldness is a hair color?"</span></span></span></span>
    <span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span>
    <span><span><span><span>Atheism is a refusal to believe without evidence. Since there is no evidence that Santa Claus exist, then to not believe in Santa Clause is not to be a 'Non-Santa 'believer - but merely to acknowledge the evidence.</span></span></span></span>
    <span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span>
    <span><span><span><span>Since there is no evidence that god exists, then is is reasonable not to believe. That does not make us 'non-god'believer. It does make us rationalists - and rationalism is not a belief, but an evidential approach to knowledge!</span></span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  20. I use to translate some of these videos for my country. But this woman piss my ears off, now way I'm gonna have patience to hear that again.

    ReplyDelete
  21. <span>I use to translate some of these videos for my country. But this woman piss my ears off, no way I'm gonna have patience to hear that again.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  22. Actually, Megan Kelly was relatively civil and light-hearted in this piece compared to the usual conservative venom she spews.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ignorant bitch really pissess me off. She couldn't shut her mouth long enough for Dave to answer her false allegations. She tried and tried to put words in his mouth, but to no avail. She must have one huge set of balls under that dress to accuse atheists of pushing their "beliefs" on the rest of America. Arrrrgh! She makes me wish there was a "gawd" and that that "gawd" would strike her pompous ass down. FAUX news makes me wretch.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "the thinking theist"? If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete
  25. i agree. I also think he's afraid to "go off" on these nits because then they could accuse "all" atheists of being overly aggressive, pushy, bigoted asswipes...just like the people he's interviewed by.

    ReplyDelete
  26. thinking theist must believe that off is a TV channel too. Imagine all the gods which you do not believe in. Now, add one more to that list and you are just like us.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The thinking theistDecember 1, 2010 at 2:06 PM

    <span>

    <span><span>State clearly what you charge me with when you say I dont think, I should read the bible, I should study the liturgy (what liturgy and why?). You dont even know me. I could be a religion prof, or have read the bible a thousand times... If this is a rational discussion, which I am begining to think it is not, then lets speak rationaly and about what we know. </span><span></span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>Second, I have sex in many positions with my wife, so I think you should change your religion if the magical sky fairy you believe in has a problem with sex in its given context.</span><span></span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>Third, did you bother to ask if I even thought that Christ was born on december 25th? Most atheist's ideas of what a Christian is are based on caricatures. It's a date, the bible does not say exactly on what day He was born.</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>Fourth, I would have to look at your "hijacked point more closely  (which I will), but the fact that christianity says things other belief systems had already claimed happened, does not make it untrue (that is called a bad argument- it does not disprouve your position, but it is a bad argument). If someone lies about having invented the printing press, that does make the person who actualy invents it a liar. <span> </span></span></span><span></span>

    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  28. The thinking theistDecember 1, 2010 at 2:11 PM

    <span><span>Forth, "Atheism as a label...." its called a word; words exist to convey meaning, which, hopefully reflects Reality, What is or simply</span><span> put:</span><span> Truth. Atheism, or Christian</span><span>ity</span><span> for that matter, as labels, carriers of meaning, cannot be put into the unlabelable category, so all the analogies about not collecting being a hobby and bald being a color go against the idea that words simply carry specific meaning. "Bald" is a state of having no hair, it is not a color (the only place it would be called a color is on the back of a Martha Stewart paint sample), so you are not comparing comparable categories, so find another (truthful) analogy).</span><span> </span><span><span>Let me put it another way: "the statement you believe is most consistent with reality is: "there is no God." That is what belief means. We are talking about epistemology, plain and simple. You are trying to disown the word "belief" and make it a strickly "religious" word which it is not.</span></span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>You guys have problems with words: rationalism... your worldview make you interpret that word as being: Angels are bad, evolution is good. There are somethings that are knowable, but invisible. Before microscopes, bacteria existed.</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  29. The thinking theistDecember 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM

    <span>That is really petty. I am trying to be serious. The administrators here should do something about comments like this. This is not helping the discussion at all.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  30. @<span>The thinking theist</span><span></span>
    not believing in something is not a 'belief', it is a lack of belief, plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think he did really well. Megyan Kelly is a slippery little wench and he really outmaneuvered her. On top of that he was clear, concise, and made her look foolish without raising his voice or attacking her on a personal level. Plus I get tired of hearing the religion poisons everthying argument. I may agree with Hitchens on that point but I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in god not because of how I think religion affects the world.

    ReplyDelete
  32. No, it is you making the category mistake.

    Your saying beliving in something is no different than not beliving in it. That to believe in tooth fairies, is no different then not beliving in tooth fairies. That both are acts of belief.

    However, there is a difference - one makes a supernatural claim, ie,  God(s), tooth fairies etc, exist. The other says where is the evidence? No evidence, no belief.

    You try to fill the vacumn of your ignorance with supernatural entities which you have no proof for, we do not. To say, that we are both doing the same thing is simply false.

    You assert something, we do not!


    Thinking atheist writes:
    "<span><span>You g</span></span><span><span>uys have problems with words: rationalism... your worldview make you interpret that word as being: Angels are bad, evolution is good."</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>We use the word rationalism to mean that which we can prove through evidence (mostly observational evidence). We do not say angels are bad? Since angels do not exist it would be silly for us to claim that they are good or bad. Something that does not exist cannot have properties.</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>Neither do we say evolution is good. We say evolution is to be accepted as a fact because of all the evidence for it. </span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>Angels no evidence - evolution loads of evidence. </span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>The fact that you use terms like "good" and "bad" in relation to the existence of angels and evolution, shows that you interpret the world through your subjective values, rather then upon observation. Sorry, but the existence (or lack there of) of things is not based upon our value wishes.</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span></span></span><span><span>

    Thinking atheist writes:
    </span></span>
    <span><span>"There are somethings that are knowable, but invisible. Before microscopes, bacteria existed."</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>
    <span><span>Are you saying God is a giant 'micro 'and one day we will discover the right 'microscope' by which we can observe him???</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  33. <span><span>Thinking theist, here is a parable that may help you comprehend what a lack of belief means, as opposed to an assertion of belief.</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>Imagine China 3,000 years ago when most Chinese believed an eclipse of the sun was caused by the fire dragon trying to swallow the sun.</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>The Chinese would stop the fire dragon by setting off fire crackers and generally making as much noise as possible to scare the fire dragon away before he swallows the sun.</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>Now imagine a Chinese rationalist who refused to set off the fire crackers etc</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>A fire-dragon beliving Chinese person could say to him:</span></span>
    <span><span>"Why are you not making a noise to stop the fire dragon from swollowing the sun?"</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>The retionalist responds, "I do not believe in fire dragons"</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>Fire-dragon beliver , "But what causes the sun to go dark, if not the fire dragon trying to swallow it?"</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>Rationalist, "I don't know."</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>Fire dragon believer. "See the fire dragon must be the reason, as you have no other explanation."</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>Since 3000 years ago the Chinese had no scientific explanation of what caused an eclipse of the sun does this mean the fire-dragin explanation was accurate?</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>Does this mean not beliving in the fire dragon, is based on the same faulty logic of the fire dragon believers?</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>The same applies to your god belief. Just because you propose a god to explain things, does not mean it is rational for us to believe in him, just as it would be not be rational to believe in fire dragons because of eclipses.</span></span>
    <span><span></span></span> 
    <span><span>As it is we know a great deal about the world, and just as we now know what causes eclipses of the sun, we also know how life evolved, how the solar system came to be, and indeed how the universe itself came into existence - and [...]

    ReplyDelete
  34. The thinking theistDecember 2, 2010 at 11:08 AM

    <span>Your say difference in believing and not believing is that one states something, the other simply does not. I agree with that, I am not trying to make a linguistic argument here. The point is why do you have or how you came to have your worldview and I mine? You say no evidence, no belief... then you are an agnostic not an Atheist because if you dont have the evidence now, you could get it later. I have seen this writen by evolutinary scientit's all the time: we lack information or proof, but we will keep searching and get it; they dont disavow their worldview.</span>
    <span></span>
    <span>No God is not a giant micro, but just making the point that lack of evidence (here is another term we can talk about) does not mean something is not true. Your parable is proof positive of that. Your rationalist says: I dont know know what causes the sun to disapear- but he is sure its not dragons- why? So he remains a rationalist while not having conclusive evidence, yet drops his belief in dragons (Adragonist?)</span>

    ReplyDelete