Atheist pwns a couple of ******s on Faux News

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

The question doesn't "appear" dumb, it actually is dumb. Infact, the entire basis of getting an atheist to appear on the show to answer such a ridiculous question suggests that the anchors (and the network) view atheists as some bizarre/otherworldly oddity whose way of life is a curiosity to them that demands justification or explanation.

"How can you live your life without an imaginary best friend to fall back on when life gets difficult!?!"

It's absurd.

Theoretically speaking, yes - Silverman could have played it safe and attempted to answer the question calmly and as politely as possible, but again, the question itself is a ****ing insult, and in doing so he would've been putting himself at risk of being yelled at, shouted over, and cut off altogether like the hundreds of other guests of opposing views on Fox News have been over the years.

John Kasich, Sean Hannity, Megan Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin, John Gibson, Martha McCallum - The list of volatile news anchors (especially in regards to atheists) who are working or have worked at Fox is literally in the dozens.

As for the invisible man in the sky argument, you can twist it however you want but that is, essentially, what all Christians believe. That God created man in his image (and had a son!), therefore God is physically similar to mankind.

The idea of atheists being able to "rise above" the childish antics of condescending Christians (who lay claim to moral authority and existential superiority, no less) is an experiment that we atheists have attempted for an endless amount of years. It got us nowhere.

It's not fact though, that's the whole point. Now I'm not going to say that Atheists take as much a leap in faith as do people who believe in god but the fact of the matter is, you don't know if there isn't a god.

So your claim of it being idiotic, insulting and all the other offensive labels is wrong. You can repeat over and over that god doesn't exist but you can't prove it, the same way people who believe can't prove he does, so that leaves both sides in a stalemate.

The answer then is not to act like 4 years old and make fun of each other. Both the anchor and the atheist were wrong in that interview, both were antagonizing and disrespectful.

[Barn]

It's not about pride though, it's about tolerance and respect. We can't have a civilized discussion about things is mockery is the first approach.

Yeah but if a religious person starts being patronising because they believe they have a greater knowledge than you, then it's human instinct to take there apparent superior knowledge that you think is nonsense and mock them for it.

[the_ilest]

"People should act like atheist when it comes to natural disaster". WTF? I have lived most of my life in an island in the Caribbean. This island is full of religious fanatics. We have a threat every year of natural disaster. Before anyone goes to church or start praying, they get prepare. They buy the necessary foods, water, batteries for important electronics appliances and some people still use candles. What makes him think that christian and religious people dont plan for the worst?

If people want to believe in anything, let them be. They are free to do it. It seems hypocritical of atheist to act like the same way that religious fanatics act with their no tolerance to other belief. Making a mockery is not going to change their opinion of their "gods" or whatever they believe in. Acting like they are much better or more intelligent is not so different from them telling you that you will burn in hell. Then they have the audacity to ask why this world is so eff up.

i really dont think you understand what he was saying. Ill reword what he was saying, "it is pointless to pray since there is no god. instead of wasting time praying why not help other people." I have worked with David in several reason rallies. He has what i would call a "over educated" way of speaking. Common folk don't seem to understand what he is getting at. The catholic women seems to have fallen into Silverman's logical trap. She had no clue what happened but she unintentionally admitted there is no "god" or that her personal views are not the same as the catholic beliefs which means she is bluntly ignorant of her own religion. What the catholic women stated goes against the "god is the first cause of everything." If god did not cause the storm then god did not cause the "big bang and the creation of the universe." David is really good with logic games. Too bad most people don't understand what he is getting at.

[The Noose]

There are several instances where its stated God spoke down, where do you think he is speaking down from a ladder? and if he made man in his image then hes pretty much a man, who just happens to have magical powers.

All that matters is that religious people dont see God as an invisible man on a cloud. There is a fairly substantial difference between man and God despite whether one of made in the other ones image. Hearing a voice from above doesnt cancel out the definition of 'God'.

Plus calling god an invisible man in the sky, is intended to insult, not describe. So imo not only is it inaccurate, it is also pointless, because it doesnt further the discussion.
I see no point in discussing anything if you are not attempting to be understand one another. Ridicule has no place in a mature discussion.

]

The question doesn't "appear" dumb, it actually is dumb. Infact, the entire basis of getting an atheist to appear on the show to answer such a ridiculous question suggests that the anchors (and the network) view atheists as some bizarre/otherworldly oddity whose way of life is a curiosity to them that demands justification or explanation.

"How can you live your life without an imaginary best friend to fall back on when life gets difficult!?!"

It's absurd.

It comes down to a lack of understanding. It was a simple question, and could be answered simply. I dont see it as a question that is insulting because there are many people who really dont understand the atheists position. Maybe they asked him on their show to ridicule him, but that is easily delt with with a tiny bit of common sense and maturity. You dont go down to a childs level when talking to them, u lead by example.
We all know there are many religious people who arent very bright, and they are also interested in what atheists do in times of crisis. We just can explain it to them.

Theoretically speaking, yes - Silverman could have played it safe and attempted to answer the question calmly and as politely as possible, but again, the question itself is a ****ing insult, and in doing so he would've been putting himself at risk of being yelled at, shouted over, and cut off altogether like the hundreds of other guests of opposing views on Fox News have been over the years.

John Kasich, Sean Hannity, Megan Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin, John Gibson, Martha McCallum - The list of volatile news anchors (especially in regards to atheists) who are working or have worked at Fox is literally in the dozens.

Like i said, if they interrupted, he asks to finish. If he is yelled at, he keeps calm and makes their telling look even more stupid. He wouldnt of been cut off if he had just answered simply. Because he would have given them no bait for a big shouty argument, which is what they wanted.

The idea of atheists being able to "rise above" the childish antics of condescending Christians (who lay claim to moral authority and existential superiority, no less) is an experiment that we atheists have attempted for an endless amount of years. It got us nowhere.

Atheists now have a voice. Bit it is the tone of that voice and the words chosen that counts. I can appreciate Dawkins and Hitchens being outspoken and rocking the boat to make an impact, and getting people talking. But now i believe, the worst thing we can do is to become like the annoying preachers we despised. We cant talk about a civilised society, reason and intelligence whilst acting uncivilised and unreasonable, because it isnt intelligent. We are creating a deeper divide between religious and non-religious because we are attacking and they are defending. Those knots are only becoming tighter.

[The Noose]

Yeah but if a religious person starts being patronising because they believe they have a greater knowledge than you, then it's human instinct to take there apparent superior knowledge that you think is nonsense and mock them for it.

Then we need to evolve. Mockery is for monkeys.

[Barn]

Then we need to evolve. Mockery is for monkeys.

I agree...

However I'm guilty of letting my pride get the better of me so I'm not helping this evolution.

[the_ilest]

I agree...

However I'm guilty of letting my pride get the better of me so I'm not helping this evolution.

It has been known of me, to let my pride take over. In several instances I always lean towards mockery. But as a Man that has studied history. I realize that those that mock religion are always right in the future. Mockery is the first step to ending a religion.

[Fury]

People like that guy don't help the Atheist cause.

[cupocity303]

the best bit was easily

"so do drugs"

so quick as well, instant retort.

Was about to say this.

And LOL@ them being all offended while mocking him at the same time. You can't debate these people in these types of segments. Just get your zingers in and give the internet Atheist community a few lolz.

[jtcs1981]

i really dont think you understand what he was saying. Ill reword what he was saying, "it is pointless to pray since there is no god. instead of wasting time praying why not help other people." I have worked with David in several reason rallies. He has what i would call a "over educated" way of speaking. Common folk don't seem to understand what he is getting at. The catholic women seems to have fallen into Silverman's logical trap. She had no clue what happened but she unintentionally admitted there is no "god" or that her personal views are not the same as the catholic beliefs which means she is bluntly ignorant of her own religion. What the catholic women stated goes against the "god is the first cause of everything." If god did not cause the storm then god did not cause the "big bang and the creation of the universe." David is really good with logic games. Too bad most people don't understand what he is getting at.

I understand what he is saying. But what he said about: Be an atheist; assuming religious people dont prepare was wrong. I wonder in how many emergency circumstances he has been in. I'm talking from experience, they do prepare. I saw people in my family planning for things and during the hurricane they start praying. They pray because they get a sense of comfort that they are being protected. I dont agree with it, but they are happy. I also saw the same people working the next day to clean the areas, help the neighbors and the community, not expecting a "god" to do the things for them. They didnt kneel to ask for someone to clean and help, they did it. His assumption was wrong.

Most christian religions do not tolerate other belief and that is why you have so many type of christian denominations. Most of them dont even take time to rationalize when you talk to them about science and human rights. But when it comes to protect themselves and their families, they are different. (I know the exceptions like Jehova Witnesses, no blood transfusion when they can save their family lives, and the Mormons with their kids, they dont make good decision and plenty more.)