SE Cupp isn't confusing because she is conservative. She is confusing because she talks about defending religious beliefs over secular beliefs, she talks about how religious people are the greatest people in the world and says religious people aren't wrong about their beliefs. This is contradicting her atheist status.
She is an atheist about as much as I am a black sumo wrestler. Now I can dress up as a sumo wrestler and get my skin airbrushed and hair changed but that doesnt make me a black sumo wrestler. She is a phony. Plain and simple.
...riiight. can you read? i'm either talking to a troll or someone who has no cognitive understanding of what words mean when put together. SO, this once i'll help you out, little guy. i addressed your ridiculous notion that religious theories should be debated in school, a theory that has not one scientifically peer reviewed paper published. also, the dumb idea that if something has been believed for 1000s of years it should still be considered. READ the comment. u r a waste of time.
@RandomTrollAccount Someone with a RandomTrollAccount is calling me a troll? You may have a future in comedy. I gave 3 reasons for why I support teaching ID in schoos. You addressed none of them until now. Although your argument that something does not deserve study if it has been believed for 1000's of years is specious, I give you credit for being in the ball park. Fout tip. Strike 2.
@tubelarr why does my name have anything to do with this? if anything it takes a troll to know one. fuck you are dim. *sigh* here is my FIRST comment DUMBASS 1-"theories live and die in the laboratory NOT IN THE CLASSROOM" 2-"you do know people believed that the earthcentric view of univrs for 1000s of years right?" How does the longevity of a misconception/untruth make it more plausible and valid? it's like talking to a fucking child or a dog with you. pathetic and embarrassing. learn to READ
@RandomTrollAccount Oh I see now. 1-You are not open to hearing all ideas. 2-You prefer to ignore history. 3-You feel 2 points are sufficient to answer any question. They say a joke is bad when you have to explain the punchline. I guess it was a bad troll joke. May I suggest that you change your name to RandomFuckingAccount? I feel that name would offer a greater opportunity for jokes that do not require explanation Thanks.
i do not like this guy... "There is no god" Most atheists never say that and the ones that do don't have the best reasons for being atheists. He wants SE cupp to 'reinforce' her atheism to supplement this paradigm. It's almost similar to swinging at a tennis ball without a racket and expecting a favorable result.
@PaGaNM0nK If an atheist is not willing to say "There is no God" Then that person isn't an Atheist. Atheist by definition is knowing that there is no Gods or Goddess. Agnostic on the other hand is people who are not sure, most of the time it means they don't believe in the God of the bible or any gods from earth but are unsure or believe there is some type of god.
@Seakkon: "Atheist by definition is knowing that there is no Gods or Goddess."
Wrong. Atheism = without a belief in the existance of God (or Gods), the keyword here being belief. Agnosticism = without knowlage of the existence of God. Atheism goes to what one believes, and agnosticism goes to what one claims to know.
@thecraziestkyle I am also a conservative atheist who supports allowing intelligent design in schools. I support it for several reasons. 1-I am open to hearing all ideas and opposed to censorship. 2- To ignore a viewpoint that has existed for 4000 years and shaped western civilization is anti-intellectual. 3-I support freedom of religion and do not believe the constitution allows the government to interfer with the people's right to freely exercise their religion.
@tubelarr There are only so many things the school can fit into the curriculum. That is why they have a policy not to teach things that are unscientific in the science classroom. The rejection of intelligent design from the classroom does not interfere with a person's right to practice their beliefs. Religious people can still attend churches that speak out against it and protest in public. Disbelieving facts is not a crime. Teaching pseudoscience in school is.
@thecraziestkyle A policy to not to teach things that are unscientifc? lol That is mostly what they do in public schools. They ignore the big questions in life and replace them with fads. The schools are anti-intellectual. You cannot have a serious discussion about the nature of the universe without a discussion of religion. Its nice that you would allow people to attend churches, but the constitution guarantees free exercise. Free exercise does not mean anywhere but in schools.
@tubelarr you obviously don't understand the issue if you believe ID should be taught in schools. atheists are supposed to be more educated than this so it makes me a bit disturbed to read that. ANYWAY, theories live and die in the laboratory NOT IN THE CLASSROOM. Do we try and teach other ideas of Electronic princ or germ theory? no because that. would. be. stupid. you do know people believed that the earthcentric view of univrs for 1000s of years right? wake up please.
@tubelarr wow, your response was banal and didn't respond to any of the facts i put forth. great job. with brains like yours no wonder religious nut jobs have hijacked american politics
@RandomTrollAccount Banal? Really? I get no points for the sports metaphor? I think you should explain to me how your rant addressed anything I said before accusing me of not responding to you. He shoots. He scores! 2 points.
@Lonao Yeah but that's still only 1 right wing leaning channel to all the left wing leaning channels. I also don't believe it's the "worst", it's just the only one John Stewart rags on (rightfully so most of the time)
@Redeye1524 Only left leaning channel you have is msnbc, which is almost as bad as fox yes, but they don't make up stuff half as mutch as fox does. I'm against biased news channels, be it msnbc or fox news. When news stop being about entertainment and more about news you will get unbiased news. News should report news, not give their opinion on them (pundits)
she confuses people because she uses strict talking points and has the same misunderstandings about religious political bullshit that a lot of people have
Why not go on Fox News? Any time you appear on TV it's an opportunity to get your voice out there. Hell, if I was famous, I'd go on any TV program who invited me, regardless of network ideology. I'm a libertarian, but if I were invited to go on the View, I'd go just to argue my side.
Why apologize from being on Fox? You sound like a wiener. Only leftists want to dictate where you can speak. No one apologizes for being on Behar so why apologize to people that want to control you? Behar is far less tolerant of apposing view points than anyone on Fox and being on her show should be much more embarrassing.
I have thought the same thing... something is up with her and I am doubtful she is an atheist. I have never heard her really reason out why she takes the atheist position although the beauty of atheism is that the proposition is so simple. "I don't believe god exists" is all it takes to qualify. On her website, listed in her favorite reads is Dinesh D' Souza. If that isn't a red flag I don't know what is. She certainly comes across as a walking contradiction. Thanks Penn!
I don't believe for a second that S.E. Cupp is an Atheist. No true non-believer "aspires to be a person of faith," as she has proclaimed on numerous occasions. I think her professed Atheism is in fact a subterfuge and that in the not too distant future we will see her writing a book about her "conversion" to Christianity. Clever way to make money but still total bullshit from this sexy young poster girl for American conservatives. She's like Sarah Palin with a brain.
I don't always agree with you Penn, but I respect that you have principles. I am still puzzled as to why the Catholic Church Episode was omitted from the Season Box Set and is not mentioned on the Website. I hope it wasn't The Cattle-Tick Church pressuring the Distributors or Producers.
If she wants real money she will have an "conversion" I would latest when she gets married. You cant always go that fine line pleasing neo-cons and being truthful for yourself.
Hey I agree with Penn;s friend and think she is full of it, I even think that on her conservative cred, since she admits to have been a ballerina for the DC and Boston Ballet comp. yet those companies received NEA cash. She just wants fame and money
Penn, as a fellow Libertarian I suspect that, like me, you disagree as much with Fox's mantra as you do MSNBC'S and most news outlets. Beck has been good to you and agrees to disagree with the whole atheist thing and gives you respect. I hope you continue to appear on ALL shows regardless of what your peers suggest.
Why apologize for appearing on a network that lets you speak freely? Sounds like some people don't respect your independence to me? Just my opinion, though.
SE cupp is most likely an atheist but one that probably wishes there were a god thereby her wanting to be a christian or whatever which explains why she defends religion.... not all atheists are anti-theists.
I dont get why being agnostic is so hard for people to understand. She just means that she is not going to completely shut the door on god. religion maybe but not god. I have never met a grunt in the military that does not know god to some degree, but the S.E Cupp is not in the Military and will never experience war the way they do. That is why she says she respects those with faith and envys those people. Belive it or not, more than a few conservatives feel this way.
@Spankydaham924 Being an Atheist does not mean "she is not going to completely shut the door on god." Atheism and Agnosticism are on different plains. You can be an Agnostic Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist.
@watermelonygoodness Agnostic means lacking in faith. Her little twist is just that she doesnt always wish to be this way. She says that she envys those with faith. Gnostic has a much different meaning than just being the opposite of agnostic. Trust me I did a quick wiki on that. I didnt say athiesm was the sam as agnosticism. I'm not exactly sure what your argument is. so I'll let you try again.
@watermelonygoodness no I didnt say that. It just means something other than what you are implying. Theres a long history that goes along with that term. I just said I wiki'd it cuz I wasnt really sure what you were trying to say. I told you I wiki'd it because I confided with you my own ignorance. It was a gesture of humility not a snooty know-it-all comment. I thought you knew something that I didnt, but it just turns out you were using terms that you thought you knew and actually didnt know.
@watermelonygoodness I only meant that it did not mean what you thought it meant. I did not claim to be an expert. I did not want to explain further because the meaning of 'gnostic' is very deep and complicated, but since you have decided to be a dickhead, here is your explanation. Now if you want to make an argument about atheism rather than semantics then I would be happily obliged to discuss the matter with you. If you have no argument to make other than wiki is unreliable then do not reply.
"Her little twist is just that she doesnt always wish to be this way. She says that she envys those with faith. " This does not make her an Agnostic as opposed to an Atheist.
@watermelonygoodness This comment is 100% correct. I dont know why it was marked as spam. What makes agnosticism different from atheism is agnostics say they will not concede that there is a god nor will they deny that there is not. Atheists say that there is most definitly not a God. Agnostics lack faith and atheists do not believe in faith. Do you see my point? In other words, agnostics have the capacity but do not have faith.
@Spankydaham924 You are wrong. Atheists do not necessarily say there is most definitely not a god. That would be an Gnostic Atheist. An Agnostic Atheist would be someone who says they don't think there is a god but they ultimately cannot know. A Gnostic Theist would say there is certainly a god. An Agnostic Theist would say they think there is a god but ultimately they cannot know. Good lord.
@watermelonygoodness I didnt understand your comment becuase you phrased things so awkwardly. It turns out that the words you used were incorrect. You dont make any sense. You said "Atheism and Agnosticism are on different plains". But then you contradict yourself by saying 'You can be an Agnostic Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist." Agnosticism means (like I said) will not concede that there is a god nor will they deny that there is not. That is completly different from atheism. Verstehest du?
@Spankydaham924 No. You are a moron. I didn't contradict myself. Being Christian and being Liberal are on separate plains. But you can be a Christian Liberal. I will send you a link to a chart to illustrate to you what I'm saying because words don't seem to be doing it.
@bigJ09z Ok, let's take our morality from the Bible then. We can have slaves, and it even tells us how to beat them. Fantastic. Let's stone adultresses, homosexuals and unruly children too. Lovely. No Christians, other than the Westboro Baptists and a few more loons would follow all of the 'morality' from that book. Where do you get your morality from then?
Yes, I believe things. Everybody does. I just like to believe things that have been shown to be true, or the most likely explanation.
@truthiness2010 Ok so now your using those nut jobs to get a point somehow right?? Yeah not all christians are like that but hey think what you will. On another note what is logic? what is truth to you?where does your logic come from?Who decides logic? How do you know your logic is true logic?
@bigJ09z If you were capable of reading you would have seen that that was exactly what I said. A tiny minority of Christians think that way. But they are the ones who are actually following what the Bible says, so where are the rest of Christians getting their morality from? I don't think it is necessary to believe that I have an invisible being watching me to do the right thing. Why do Christians feel they can't be good without an overseer?
@bigJ09z Logic, in the context in which I am using it, is the analysis of arguments based on the facts available to us. Fact: a book was written over a period from 3,000 to 1900 years ago. Fact: Nothing from that book has ever been validated through empirical evidence. Fact: Much has been debunked, such as the creation myth, Noah's flood, the slavery of the Jews in Egypt, etc. Fact: No information is provided in the Bible that would not have been available to bronze age people.
@truthiness2010 Ok you didn't answer my questions you just went on a rant about "facts" or what facts are to you. Which makes them subjective Oh really debunked odd becuse ive seen a lot that says it isn't debunked but man your just militant no wonder atheists are 0.7% of the us population. Your using nothing but materialistic philosophy hence that is why your morals are bound to change and will change. Also how are those facts?? did you google those as well?? Internet atheists these days
@bigJ09z If you require Google for the facts I listed, I am sorry for you. Where did you see different, answers in Genesis? I wouldn't care if I was the only atheist. The number of people believing something has no bearing on its veracity. Thankfully, I live in Europe, where many countries have thrown off those fairytales almost entirely. I did not go on a rant. First I explained the logical process. Then I listed some of the inputs into that process.
@truthiness2010 So im guessing you alienated your family then as I often hear that story from atheists. Because most the time they think they are smarter then everyone else. Your a materialist and a lapsed catholic
@bigJ09z My brother is also an atheist and truth be told, so are my sisters but they just don'tlike to admit it I think. I alienated nobody. I was the first, but my whole family are reasonable people, not so attached to any belief that they would not question it. Yes, I am a materialist and an atheist, and proud of both.
@truthiness2010 Ok so that means everything is subjective to you because you only follow the laws of the land. Seriously you arguing for materialism and atheism seems to me useless and it does alienate people because you seem to think your smarter then everyone else and you go around mocking people who don't think the way you do. That it seems to me would make most if not all atheists nothing but bully's who enjoy mocking and insulting other people. Which is counter productive to anything
@bigJ09z I do not mock anyone for their beliefs, unless they try and push theirs on me. If I am asked my opinion on any religion and on the existence of God then I will argue my opinion and argue it forcefully, but I do not go around bringing up the subject with people who do not invite it.
Atheism is just non belief in the claims put forward. I can only rely on the logic that we all use in our everyday lives, and that tells me the claims ring false. I am willing to change if new facts emerge.
@truthiness2010 Well isn't it ironic then that your trying to push your's on me then your such a hypocrite. Atheism is a religion even though its not tax exempt like VincentTruman said I use logic but I also think you can't apply it to everything. Trying to apply it to everything would make things more complicated then they really are and you can't define logic well so im not going to ask you what it means. Logic doesn't work for everything it can help with somethings but doesn't answer it all.
@bigJ09z I think you will find, if you go back through the messages, that it was in fact you who addressed me first. I merely responded to your message to me.
I do not agree. Logic does not complicate anything; quite the opposite.
@truthiness2010 Actually it does because some things can't be explained through logic. I have found that people say they use logic but more often then not they use their feelings. You sound like atheism was a emotional choice and not a logical one for you. Which begs the question what is true logic besides saying we use it in our everyday lives. But you never define what logic that is or what made logic to begin with but rather saying logic again and again. Although you try to define it you cant
@bigJ09z Logic, in the context in which I am using it, is the analysis of arguments based on the facts available to us. It is devoid of emotion.
Theists are simply unable to understand what it must be like not to believe in God. I can assure you, it feels no different to not believing in Santa Claus.
@truthiness2010 logic that we use in our everyday lives you mean feelings right?? Because it seems to me you are unable to deine it other then we use it in our everyday lives. Now I could say I use common sense everyday but sometimes people don't use common sense because it isn't needed in every situation. Now since your using your feelings as logic your right we do use our feelings everyday. So what logic are you talking about again?? Cause feelings aren't logical all of the time
@bigJ09z I was not referring to feelings. Of course feelings play a big part in life, but I only have feelings for and about those things and people that I can see, or that I have seen. Feelings do not play a part when appraising an argument such as the theist one. A claim is made. A book is written. That book is used as evidence for the claim. There is no other evidence. It is as simple as that. Unless you have any other information that would sway me, I think we must agree to disagree.
@truthiness2010 Oh and also atheism is a religion the belief in non belief which is pretty ironic considering. Most atheists don't like it being called a religion because it would make them the same as thoughs they so hate or in your case want to educate. With supposed higher knowledge and logic based on reason and logic which begs the question where did logic and reason come from and how do you know your logic and reason is the right logic and reason. Other then you saying it us the right logic
@bigJ09z "Most atheists don't like it being called a religion"
If atheism was a religion, why isn't it tax exempt - as religions are? Why won't atheists criticize homosexuals for the the way they lead their lives - as religions do? Why aren't there atheists blowing themselves up in marketplaces - as the religious do? Why aren't there stories of atheists fucking children right and left, while simple, sheep-like followers do nothing to help these children?
@bigJ09z As I already explained to you, the vast majority of Christians change their morals over time as well. Perhaps that is why you are no longer embarking on crusades ordered by the Pope? And why women are no longer treated as their father's or husband's chattel. And why you don't keep slaves. This means that you must be getting your morality from another source than the Bible, even if you don't know it.
@truthiness2010 Man for being so smart you really are stuck back in the stone age the bible never said keep slaves. I actually get my morality from the bible what is right and wrong and so on even though I mess up often. I see your intentions aren't good as you wish to knock the crutch from out from under people despite you saying your intentions are good ive seen nothing but evil from them. So im going to assume your actions are done with evil intentions. Im not catholic by the way
@bigJ09z I have read the Bible cover to cover and it certainly does advocate keeping slaves. You can't take them from your own tribe though. You also can't beat them so hard they die on the spot. If you don't believe this, I can look up the chapters for you.
I do not believe that there is ever a good reason to believe what is not true. I do not accept the crutch argument. It is because I care about other people that I seek to get them to question unfounded beliefs.
@truthiness2010 You aren't helping anyone though your just running them off not helping anyone. Your nothing new to this world at all your more evangelical then most religious nutjobs I have seen. Which says something because your advocateing for things of a destructive nature that won't help people. Your intentions aren't good in the end they are bad because you have only shown me how arrogant and how ignorant most atheists are. You must live in a world where everyone is dumb and stupid but you
@bigJ09z You have clearly always believed what you have been told and have looked for information that backs up your previously held beliefs. You have probably never sought to question these beliefs, and the best you can do to defend them is to attack people who do question them.
I was baptised a Catholic and attended a Catholic school for the entirety of my pre university education, but I have always sought to question everything and read everything, and I was an atheist before Google began :)
I saw that Red Eye episode and Penn mentioned something about the Insane Clown Posse during the Atheist talk and before he can say what he said, it went to commercial break and ICP was never mentioned again.
Why was Penn talking about ICP in the discussion unless it was about the Miracles music video.
They were mass murderers who were atheists, yes (Hitler is questionable but I accept for sake of argument). They replaced religion with their own ideology. This is against all reason and any decent atheist would have been as opposed to this ideology as to theology, moreso because of the horrors that were being committed. I do consider the people chanting in Nuremburg to be sheep. What would you call them? Atheism is not a belief. It is disbelief without evidence and the antithesis of ideology.
Do I believe she will finally see God? Maybe. I've read her work and I will tell you she speaks more about sovereignty than anything else. In my opinion, she understands that concept and is aware change can be possible. Just speaking in retrospect.
Were all smart enough to acknowledge faith, but stupid enough to blame it.
Is fair to say that shes already perceived as a different character. And if she does find God, then all hell is gonna break lose. I will say that people unfairly crucify her, they challenge her and is OK, nothing wrong. I highly adore the woman but even I know whats going on. I do believe by heart she does believe, but unfortunately, she makes it easy for her opponents to challenge her.
She does not confuse people because of her conservatism. She confuses people because she has no clear idea of what an atheist is or why atheists are atheists. She also writes books/pieces defending Christianity. An atheist? Please.
@ErikMartin81 No, I am not one of those people. On the contrary, if I was a UK voter I believe that there is every chance I would vote for UKIP myself. Indeed, I am in full agreement with his position on Geert Wilders. I do not in any way view atheism and hardline liberalism as synonymous.
I know atheism is about reason and facts, the exact reason that I am an atheist. I do not believe that S.E. Cupp understands this, and that is why I do not believe she is an atheist.
@truthiness2010 Atheism has never been about reason or facts its been about subjective facts and supposed reason. Atheists to me are nothing more then people claiming to know everything and knowing nothing yet they claim to know everything. I think no true atheist exists just a bunch of people who claim to be because its rebellious in nature and they can attack religion because they aren't "religious". Basicly I find "atheists" to be loud mouthed hypocrites like christians are a lot of the time.
@bigJ09z What a load of twaddle. What the do you mean by 'subjective facts'? I assume you are referring to opinions, like the opinion that the universe was conjured up by an omnipotent deity. Atheism is based on one fact, the fact that no evidence whatsoever has been presented by the religious to prove the existence of a deity. That's it. I went to a catholic school and I figured out the absurdity of the religion lessons at about the same time as Santa. No rebellion, just common sense.
@truthiness2010 Well you see here is where I have a issue with Atheism they claim to know everything like you do. I like how you somehow how feel the existence of deity is absurd yet you fail to realize your way of thinking is even more absurd. "Facts" as you put are subjective ive heard this time and time again. But you comparing god to santa isn't that shocking cause that is all you have it seem's. All I see is ego and arrogance not facts im common sensed but im not a atheist. Thank goodness.
@bigJ09z I did not claim to know everything. In fact, I made no claims whatsoever. You are the one claiming the existence of a deity. Tell me why I should believe your claim. What is the evidence you used to come to the conclusion that such an entity exists? I am willing to believe in the existence of a deity, or indeed any other supernatural force for which sufficient evidence is presented. Of course at that point it will have ceased to be viewed as supernatural.
@truthiness2010 Is that all you can go on is "evidence" what do you want me to say huh?? Even if there was "evidence" you would likely want more and more "evidence". The evidence argument is kind of vauge to me you say you want evidence yet you never say what kind and when and if evidence is shown you say its not good enough. So yes I think its subjective as for common sense faith doesn't require "common sense" although in this day and age people use that term often. But I don't everything :)
@bigJ09z I believe that the universe was expelled from a huge cosmic toad by way of flatulence and I believe that all life is descended from the parasites on the toad. Do you believe my claim? If not, why not?
@truthiness2010 Hmmm I see what game your trying to play intresting strategy but flawed as well. Lets put it this way life is to complex for some big bang thoery to have worked and I resent your mocking tone which is in fact counter productive to your cause. To me it shows that if all you can resort to is mocking then you know your argument is weak and not evidence based but feeling based and like Penn based on pure ego.
@bigJ09z Yes, the game is called logic. My claim about the toad is ridiculous and deserves to be mocked. There is no evidence for my fantastic tale at all. All religions represent equally fantastic tales, also based on zero evidence, and deserve to be treated accordingly.
@truthiness2010 Man lol at least atheists are consistant jerks and narcissists stop using evidence so loosely really. You don't even know what evidence your talking about your being so subjective with it all I see is that your a big loud mouthed religious atheist or in otherwords jerk. What logic by the way the logic of being a jerk or the logic of you are your own god and are nothing more then a egotistical bully. I think actually your more religious then most religious people.
@bigJ09z No, we are being objective. All I ask for is empirical evidence. You don't seem to understand. I don't believe in your god in the same way as I do not believe in the tooth fairy. It is of no consequence to me until I see people making ridiculous, unfounded claims. If there were people on here seriously arguing for the evidence of a tooth fairy I would argue against them too. Indeed a child could provide evidence of the tooth fairy which is more than a religionist can do.
@truthiness2010 Seriously stop it with the fairy tale comparison it just shows you have no good argument but "logic" and "evidence". No your not being objective your subjective you never define anything there is historical evidence of jesus but wait that is nothing more then a fairy tale to your "enlightend" mind. And please stop shhoting off the "evidence" and "logic" lines it makes you sound desperate to make some point. By the way you sound pretty evangelical to me but with atheism.
@bigJ09z Why would I consider the demented scribblings of some bronze age desert nomads to be anything more than fairytales? What better comparison is there? You have absolutely no understanding of what logic, reason and evidence are. I am not telling you what to believe. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of what you do believe. Why do you not worship Allah, Thor, Zeus or Lord Vishnu? Men have lived and died worshipping these gods. What more evidence do you have than they?
@truthiness2010 There you go again being evangelical although your a atheist evangelical which isn't shocking. I wouldn't call them demented ramblings but hey I guess a intellectual such as your self would think that I think. For all your talk your nothing more then a evangelical atheist which makes you also a hypocrite which isn't shocking. Considering your a anti theist and it seem's a fool to boot but then again there are a lot of christian fools as well. Welcome to the club
@bigJ09z Oh really? You think the earth was created in six days? That a man can live inside a large ish for 3 days? That genocide is justified if God commands it? That owning slaves is fine? That beating them is also fine, as long as they survive the beating? That stoning adultresses, homosexuals and unruly children is ok? That God is justified in sending bears to slaughter children who made fun of an old man? That keeping preteen girls and slaughtering everyone else is the way to go in war?
@truthiness2010 Oh boy you really want to get into this?? Ok Stalin 20 million,Hitler over 6 million not imcluding jews,Pol Pot 1.5 million,Mao Ze-Dong 70 million. And what is the logic your using again?? Im confused since you refuse to be specific that isn't a shock though.
@bigJ09z This is hilarious. You think that listing mass murderers is somehow a justification for belief without evidence. These people replace religion with their own evil ideologies. They used that weakness in human beings, the same weakness that causes billions to prostrate themselves before an invisible god. They replaced theology with their own ideology and god with themselves. This shows how dangerous the human impluse to follow like sheep is. Questioning ideology is good for humanity.
@truthiness2010 Here we go once again with your attacks im using them because they where atheists and because the killed millions. Now you calling people sheep shows you really are nothing more then a bitter person trying to make people who don't think as you miserable. Which you have done a pretty lousy job at I must say all you have done is revealed your nothing but a jerk and a millitant atheist which isn't shocking since the net is full of them. Your a evangelical "atheist"
@bigJ09z I will say this one last time. Atheists are not required to provide evidence. Those making the claim must prove their claim. If you were accused of murder, do you think that you should have to provide evidence to prove your innocence, or that the prosecutor should have to prove you guilty?
@truthiness2010 For one, despite the burden of proof being on prosecutors, defendants often supply evidence to "prove" their innocence.
Secondly, why do you get to decide who the burden of proof is on for the god debate? You say theists should prove god exists. But why shouldn't atheists prove god doesn't exist?
This is irrational, because neither side can conclusively prove anything.
@superbobbywalker Yes of course if you have evidence to refute your guilt you will present it. However, the burden is on the prosecution to provide evidence of guilt, and if they do not you have no case to answer.
@superbobbywalker If I tell you that I have been abducted by aliens and you do not believe me, do you think that the burden is on you to prove that I have not? No. That would be a large claim by me, with potentially far reaching consequences for humanity, and for people to believe it without evidence would be ridiculous. I don't 'get to decide' anything. The burden of proof is on the claimant. This is a very simple concept that we all use all the time. Only cognitive dissonance excepts religion.
@truthiness2010 You're missing the point. Theists don't have to prove anything to anyone. They believe what they want to believe. And atheists don't need to prove anything to anyone. They believe what they want to believe. Nobody really knows they're right, they're all taking some sort of leap of faith, just based on different reasoning.
@superbobbywalker No, you are missing the point. Atheists do not have 'faith'. Faith requires one to supress one's reason and to believe a story without evidence. This is what theists do. Yes, people are free to believe what they want, but people who think that it is dangerous for human beings to believe anything on faith have a right to fight it.
This is true for horoscopes, alternative medicine, religion, etc. Although it is unlikely that we will see homeopaths destroy skyscrapers.
@truthiness2010 Wrong. Faith is coming to a conclusion without conclusive evidence for doing so. Atheists have faith, just as theists do. Agnostics don't have faith, because they're not willing to jump to conclusions in either direction.
And don't start with the "religion is dangerous" stuff, because then you'll have to make more excuses for why some atheists (or at least secularists) in the past did things that were just as bad.
@superbobbywalker Agnosticism on its own is a ridiculous position. It just means 'I don't know'. That is the case for all atheists and agnostics too. Nobody knows. However, you can form a belief based on the available evidence. Those positing the claim are the theists. The evidence presented by the claimants is nothing. Therefore, you can on the basis of zero evidence form a position of a disbelief in the claim. There is no faith required for this.
@truthiness2010 Actually Agnosticism is more sound then atheism because it admits it doesn't know everything. And for heaven sake please stop throwing the word evidence around like it means something when you say it. All ive seen is that you have no positive evidence to back up what you say hell your to chicken to blame people for what is wrong with the world. Also your subjective you can't just say evidence and logic becuase it changes from person to person your argumet is void of any logic.
@bigJ09z Did you even read my last comment? You certainly didn't understand it. People who say they are agnostics are fence sitters who have not got the courage to state their opinion. I do not know whether 911 was an inside job or whether we landed on the moon. However I believe, given the evidence, the answers to be no and yes. You can not know ( which is the case for the majority of things in life) and still have an opinion. If I see evidence backing up your claim I will review my position.
@truthiness2010 You don't even specify evidence forb heaven sake you use the word so loosely it has no meaning. I could say nature is evidence is that to simple for your arrogant and ignorant self stop preaching reason and actually use it. Cause all you have been doing is showing your more evangelical then anything so you are very much a hypocrite and just a plain douchbag. Now you can't give me any positive evidence for your claims other the ranting and ranting about evidence and logic.
@bigJ09z Evidence consists of facts used to back up a claim. Facts are pieces of reality. The moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. Those are facts.
Nature is evidence of what? That your space daddy did it all? Everything in nature used to be explained that way. Now we know what produces rainbows, tides, sunrises, etc. And a god is unnecessary for any of it.
I am not making a claim. I already said, I do not know. I don't believe your claim, and you have given me no reason to.
@truthiness2010 Oh please don't give me that bullshit you don't even know they mean or you abuse the word like you do. I do know what those words mean and they sure son't mean whatever you want them to mean.
@bigJ09z So you believe that when someone makes a claim, it falls to those who do not believe it to disprove it? Ok.
I am assuming you are a Christian? Could you tell me please what the process was that you used to discount Judeism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Rastafarianism, etc., before you settled on Christianity. Presumably you disproved them for yourself? Or are you saying you don't know whether those beliefs are true? And if you don't know about them, how do you know about Christianity?
@truthiness2010 Ahhh answering a question with a question how smart of you lets just say ive done my research. Historical mostly I know you don't like history that goes against your the bible is a fairy tale and so on because it has fantastic things going on. also Cornelius Tacitus im guessing you don't buy his account or Flavius Josephus account or Julius Africanus account. But wait its a fairytale that was made by peasents and all those other people who where around before you or me.
@bigJ09z Even, if you believe those people's (very limited) accounts, all written long after Jesus' death, what does that prove? It proves that Jesus lived. We have a very detailed account of Joseph Smith's life. Does that make Mormonism true?
@bigJ09z For the last time, those making the claim must provide the evidence. This is a very simple concept that most people have grasped by the time they are 3 or 4. Unfotunately some bad people tend to shove nonsense in their heads so that they are able to go through life applying this principle most of the time, but having an area of the brain sealed off that believes without reason.
Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective. Define your god and I will specify the evidence required.
@truthiness2010 I see your like a broken record you just repeat the same things again and again and again. Now as for what you where saying or trying to say all I have to say is your elitist you clearly think you are smarter then everyone else. But then again that is typical of a atheist but as for agnostics they admit they don't know unlike a atheist who is nothing but a know it all asshole. So far you proven most what ive heard and read to be true most atheists think they are smarter.
@bigJ09z I'm like a broken record? That's because I have to try and explain the same point to you over and over. No, I do not think that I am smarter than everyone else, but I would feel very confident in thinking I am smarter than you.
@truthiness2010 Wow you hit a all neww high ego wise you really are a narcissistic ego driven person. No wonder all the worlds mass murders have been atheists
@bigJ09z You are the one who started the ad hominem attacks, my friend. Just knocking one back at you. Religionists can normally be relied upon to begin this fairly quickly. Your argument for your position is so weak, there is no alternative I suppose.
@truthiness2010 And atheists tend to be arrogant know it all's and deny historical evidence becuause it doesn't suit their. I guess I could say you have a very very bigoted and hateful view of people of faith because you blame religion for the issues in the world. When in fact it is people who are the issue but you won't admit that because you are to PC and humanism likes to think everyone is good. So the question is what is right and wrong to you what is morality to you?? Or is there none
@bigJ09z I do not believe that everyone is good. I believe quite a lot of people are bad. I think that humanities problems are entirely due to human beings. What other cause would there be? The devil? Yes, I believe religion is a problem, but as it's man-made any problems caused by it are also due to human beings. Morality comes from within and society's views of morality have changed immensely over the last two millenia, while your book's assertions have not.
@truthiness2010 Ahhh so you prove it you only depend on society's defintion of good and bad therefor it changes constantly. So therefor yours is subjective only to you and what you feel is right at that particular time in the culture. But you just said you believe therefor you do have faith although not in a god or deity but in atheism and secular humanism which can be a religion on its own. So therefor you are accountable to no one and or anything because it doesn't feel right at the time.
@bigJ09z I am willing to change any and all of my beliefs, when they have been shown to be false. Many Christians do not share this view. All atheists that I have ever spoken to do.
@bigJ09z Yes, atheism is based on the material world. ie reality. This is the realm from which you should provide evidence backing up your claims. What else is there that you know about?
@superbobbywalker I am willing to change my position in the morning, if the claimants present sufficient evidence. I do not claim to have knowledge either way, merely that I do not accept the unevidenced claims presented thusfar.
I do not have to excuse the actions of any atheists. Do the actions of atheists have any relevance whatsoever to the veracity or lack thereof of claims made by theists?
@bigJ09z If that isn't demented, I do not know what is. I do not believe that this god exists, as I do not believe any other gods from history exist. This is not a faith positio
You're sponsored by Go Daddy, Penn? Really Penn? Really?
kubush 1 month ago
@kubush This is 2010 before this whole deal really got public. (At least that I know of)
Tupacem17 1 month ago
SE Cupp isn't confusing because she is conservative. She is confusing because she talks about defending religious beliefs over secular beliefs, she talks about how religious people are the greatest people in the world and says religious people aren't wrong about their beliefs. This is contradicting her atheist status.
JovialJewels 2 months ago
@JovialJewels
Yea exactly, she's an atheist when it comes to everything but the whole 'God' part lol
GrassValleyGreg 1 month ago
shes so fucking stupid and full of shit I cant find her attractive
lapis269 2 months ago
Penn and SE Cupp are my type of Atheists. One's that can respect those who are not.
Sumoto999 2 months ago
She is an atheist about as much as I am a black sumo wrestler. Now I can dress up as a sumo wrestler and get my skin airbrushed and hair changed but that doesnt make me a black sumo wrestler. She is a phony. Plain and simple.
tinylittlegnat2 4 months ago 4
...riiight. can you read? i'm either talking to a troll or someone who has no cognitive understanding of what words mean when put together. SO, this once i'll help you out, little guy. i addressed your ridiculous notion that religious theories should be debated in school, a theory that has not one scientifically peer reviewed paper published. also, the dumb idea that if something has been believed for 1000s of years it should still be considered. READ the comment. u r a waste of time.
RandomTrollAccount 4 months ago
@RandomTrollAccount Someone with a RandomTrollAccount is calling me a troll? You may have a future in comedy. I gave 3 reasons for why I support teaching ID in schoos. You addressed none of them until now. Although your argument that something does not deserve study if it has been believed for 1000's of years is specious, I give you credit for being in the ball park. Fout tip. Strike 2.
tubelarr 4 months ago
@tubelarr why does my name have anything to do with this? if anything it takes a troll to know one. fuck you are dim. *sigh* here is my FIRST comment DUMBASS 1-"theories live and die in the laboratory NOT IN THE CLASSROOM" 2-"you do know people believed that the earthcentric view of univrs for 1000s of years right?" How does the longevity of a misconception/untruth make it more plausible and valid? it's like talking to a fucking child or a dog with you. pathetic and embarrassing. learn to READ
RandomTrollAccount 4 months ago
@RandomTrollAccount Oh I see now. 1-You are not open to hearing all ideas. 2-You prefer to ignore history. 3-You feel 2 points are sufficient to answer any question. They say a joke is bad when you have to explain the punchline. I guess it was a bad troll joke. May I suggest that you change your name to RandomFuckingAccount? I feel that name would offer a greater opportunity for jokes that do not require explanation Thanks.
tubelarr 4 months ago
penn i beg of you to stick to ONE CAMERA!! please please please. its disturbing watching the the shots just change from one to another.
halflifeproductionz 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
halflifeproductionz 4 months ago
i do not like this guy... "There is no god" Most atheists never say that and the ones that do don't have the best reasons for being atheists. He wants SE cupp to 'reinforce' her atheism to supplement this paradigm. It's almost similar to swinging at a tennis ball without a racket and expecting a favorable result.
PaGaNM0nK 5 months ago
@PaGaNM0nK If an atheist is not willing to say "There is no God" Then that person isn't an Atheist. Atheist by definition is knowing that there is no Gods or Goddess. Agnostic on the other hand is people who are not sure, most of the time it means they don't believe in the God of the bible or any gods from earth but are unsure or believe there is some type of god.
Seakkon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seakkon: "Atheist by definition is knowing that there is no Gods or Goddess."
Wrong. Atheism = without a belief in the existance of God (or Gods), the keyword here being belief. Agnosticism = without knowlage of the existence of God. Atheism goes to what one believes, and agnosticism goes to what one claims to know.
noibn2 4 months ago
@Seakkon ...Not know, "think".*
meteosurreal 4 months ago
@Seakkon No, an atheist who says he knows there is no God is a stupid athiest by self-definition :)
tubelarr 4 months ago
@tubelarr Who said anything about knowing? Re read what I said.
Seakkon 4 months ago
@tubelarr I did read it. You said "Atheist by definition is knowing there is no Gods or Goddess"
tubelarr 4 months ago
@Seakkon oops replied to myself :)
tubelarr 4 months ago
I can understand disagreeing with other atheists on issues, but how the fuck could she support teaching intelligent design in schools?
thecraziestkyle 6 months ago
@thecraziestkyle I am also a conservative atheist who supports allowing intelligent design in schools. I support it for several reasons. 1-I am open to hearing all ideas and opposed to censorship. 2- To ignore a viewpoint that has existed for 4000 years and shaped western civilization is anti-intellectual. 3-I support freedom of religion and do not believe the constitution allows the government to interfer with the people's right to freely exercise their religion.
tubelarr 5 months ago
@tubelarr There are only so many things the school can fit into the curriculum. That is why they have a policy not to teach things that are unscientific in the science classroom. The rejection of intelligent design from the classroom does not interfere with a person's right to practice their beliefs. Religious people can still attend churches that speak out against it and protest in public. Disbelieving facts is not a crime. Teaching pseudoscience in school is.
thecraziestkyle 5 months ago
@thecraziestkyle A policy to not to teach things that are unscientifc? lol That is mostly what they do in public schools. They ignore the big questions in life and replace them with fads. The schools are anti-intellectual. You cannot have a serious discussion about the nature of the universe without a discussion of religion. Its nice that you would allow people to attend churches, but the constitution guarantees free exercise. Free exercise does not mean anywhere but in schools.
tubelarr 5 months ago
@tubelarr you obviously don't understand the issue if you believe ID should be taught in schools. atheists are supposed to be more educated than this so it makes me a bit disturbed to read that. ANYWAY, theories live and die in the laboratory NOT IN THE CLASSROOM. Do we try and teach other ideas of Electronic princ or germ theory? no because that. would. be. stupid. you do know people believed that the earthcentric view of univrs for 1000s of years right? wake up please.
RandomTrollAccount 4 months ago
@RandomTrollAccount Your anti-intellectual rant was trite. With brains like yours on the atheist team, I am certain the theists will win. Go Theists!
tubelarr 4 months ago
@tubelarr wow, your response was banal and didn't respond to any of the facts i put forth. great job. with brains like yours no wonder religious nut jobs have hijacked american politics
RandomTrollAccount 4 months ago
@RandomTrollAccount Banal? Really? I get no points for the sports metaphor? I think you should explain to me how your rant addressed anything I said before accusing me of not responding to you. He shoots. He scores! 2 points.
tubelarr 4 months ago
I hate people who are so adamantly anti-FOX news because chances are they watch stupid shit like MSNBC anyways.
At least FOX has Red Eye, Stossel, and Freedom Watch
Redeye1524 6 months ago
@Redeye1524 msnbc isn't mutch better yes, but fox news is definatly worst, most biased news channel there is in states
Lonao 6 months ago
@Lonao Yeah but that's still only 1 right wing leaning channel to all the left wing leaning channels. I also don't believe it's the "worst", it's just the only one John Stewart rags on (rightfully so most of the time)
Redeye1524 6 months ago
@Redeye1524 Only left leaning channel you have is msnbc, which is almost as bad as fox yes, but they don't make up stuff half as mutch as fox does. I'm against biased news channels, be it msnbc or fox news. When news stop being about entertainment and more about news you will get unbiased news. News should report news, not give their opinion on them (pundits)
Lonao 5 months ago
she confuses people because she uses strict talking points and has the same misunderstandings about religious political bullshit that a lot of people have
nailo1 6 months ago
Why not go on Fox News? Any time you appear on TV it's an opportunity to get your voice out there. Hell, if I was famous, I'd go on any TV program who invited me, regardless of network ideology. I'm a libertarian, but if I were invited to go on the View, I'd go just to argue my side.
backwoodsninja 7 months ago 27
Penn love all your shit and LOVE S.E. Cupp. (sorry she is way hotter).
I love the fact that you both live your ideals, not what you are expected to be.
falconerx 7 months ago 3
Penn at 6:22, LMAO
dannycrunk 7 months ago
Penn at 6:23, LMAO
dannycrunk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
RunLiberty 7 months ago
Atheist Right-wing is an interesting idea. Sidenote: I'm virtually always a supporter of "tits-up". Those things are wonderful.
vmorgun 7 months ago
tits up!
Kroellmaster 7 months ago
Why apologize from being on Fox? You sound like a wiener. Only leftists want to dictate where you can speak. No one apologizes for being on Behar so why apologize to people that want to control you? Behar is far less tolerant of apposing view points than anyone on Fox and being on her show should be much more embarrassing.
danielson68 8 months ago 3
You folks sound like the people who think Obama is a secret muslim.
Darkkan77 9 months ago
Yes Penn, I do agree in VCR PRICED WELLS and GO... DADDYEEEE.
HalfDemonThomas 10 months ago
I have thought the same thing... something is up with her and I am doubtful she is an atheist. I have never heard her really reason out why she takes the atheist position although the beauty of atheism is that the proposition is so simple. "I don't believe god exists" is all it takes to qualify. On her website, listed in her favorite reads is Dinesh D' Souza. If that isn't a red flag I don't know what is. She certainly comes across as a walking contradiction. Thanks Penn!
hwk1969 10 months ago
Is it true S.E. spent a month in jail in Mexico for nothing at all?
That her nickname is "Bahama Mama"?
That she is married to Horny Joe Baloney?
That she's afraid of puppies?
HornyJoeBaloney 10 months ago
I don't believe for a second that S.E. Cupp is an Atheist. No true non-believer "aspires to be a person of faith," as she has proclaimed on numerous occasions. I think her professed Atheism is in fact a subterfuge and that in the not too distant future we will see her writing a book about her "conversion" to Christianity. Clever way to make money but still total bullshit from this sexy young poster girl for American conservatives. She's like Sarah Palin with a brain.
JackKangaroo1 10 months ago
Funny!! To the right of My Screen is a Youtube Ad for the Christian Prayer Centre.
HENJAM48 11 months ago
I don't always agree with you Penn, but I respect that you have principles. I am still puzzled as to why the Catholic Church Episode was omitted from the Season Box Set and is not mentioned on the Website. I hope it wasn't The Cattle-Tick Church pressuring the Distributors or Producers.
HENJAM48 11 months ago
If she wants real money she will have an "conversion" I would latest when she gets married. You cant always go that fine line pleasing neo-cons and being truthful for yourself.
Victius6 11 months ago
Hey I agree with Penn;s friend and think she is full of it, I even think that on her conservative cred, since she admits to have been a ballerina for the DC and Boston Ballet comp. yet those companies received NEA cash. She just wants fame and money
hank1972 11 months ago
Penn, as a fellow Libertarian I suspect that, like me, you disagree as much with Fox's mantra as you do MSNBC'S and most news outlets. Beck has been good to you and agrees to disagree with the whole atheist thing and gives you respect. I hope you continue to appear on ALL shows regardless of what your peers suggest.
Why apologize for appearing on a network that lets you speak freely? Sounds like some people don't respect your independence to me? Just my opinion, though.
frackle123 1 year ago
If she is insane, then that is a plus in my book. Hot chicks that are insane, are also insane in bed.
itchyisvegeta 1 year ago
SE cupp is most likely an atheist but one that probably wishes there were a god thereby her wanting to be a christian or whatever which explains why she defends religion.... not all atheists are anti-theists.
axl409v 1 year ago 10
@axl409v Pretty sure she's just a Christian pretending to be an atheist. Her views are so nonsensical it seems unlikely anyone could hold them.
crzyprplmnky 2 months ago
That's not why she confuses people..... She confuses people because she is insane.
drnekodr 1 year ago
WTF? i thought penn was an objectivst? i didn't know the ayn rand libertarians were charitable.
halflifeproductionz 1 year ago
@halflifeproductionz
Are people really so easy to segregate into neat categories?
Ragitsu 1 year ago
S.E. Cupp is an agnostic, not a fucking atheist
anteracmacash 1 year ago
Cant belive godaddy would buy ads on this stupid fat man. Why can't Penn stop eating when he is full?
countylineten 1 year ago
@countylineten You my skinny fellow will never know the joy of food
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
I dont get why being agnostic is so hard for people to understand. She just means that she is not going to completely shut the door on god. religion maybe but not god. I have never met a grunt in the military that does not know god to some degree, but the S.E Cupp is not in the Military and will never experience war the way they do. That is why she says she respects those with faith and envys those people. Belive it or not, more than a few conservatives feel this way.
Spankydaham924 1 year ago
@Spankydaham924 Being an Atheist does not mean "she is not going to completely shut the door on god." Atheism and Agnosticism are on different plains. You can be an Agnostic Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness Agnostic means lacking in faith. Her little twist is just that she doesnt always wish to be this way. She says that she envys those with faith. Gnostic has a much different meaning than just being the opposite of agnostic. Trust me I did a quick wiki on that. I didnt say athiesm was the sam as agnosticism. I'm not exactly sure what your argument is. so I'll let you try again.
Spankydaham924 1 year ago
@Spankydaham924 Wow, you did a quick Wiki on it? I guess I have no choice but to trust you. You're an expert now.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness no I didnt say that. It just means something other than what you are implying. Theres a long history that goes along with that term. I just said I wiki'd it cuz I wasnt really sure what you were trying to say. I told you I wiki'd it because I confided with you my own ignorance. It was a gesture of humility not a snooty know-it-all comment. I thought you knew something that I didnt, but it just turns out you were using terms that you thought you knew and actually didnt know.
Spankydaham924 1 year ago
@Spankydaham924 And I quote: "Trust me I did a quick wiki on that."
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness I only meant that it did not mean what you thought it meant. I did not claim to be an expert. I did not want to explain further because the meaning of 'gnostic' is very deep and complicated, but since you have decided to be a dickhead, here is your explanation. Now if you want to make an argument about atheism rather than semantics then I would be happily obliged to discuss the matter with you. If you have no argument to make other than wiki is unreliable then do not reply.
Spankydaham924 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Her little twist is just that she doesnt always wish to be this way. She says that she envys those with faith. " This does not make her an Agnostic as opposed to an Atheist.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness This comment is 100% correct. I dont know why it was marked as spam. What makes agnosticism different from atheism is agnostics say they will not concede that there is a god nor will they deny that there is not. Atheists say that there is most definitly not a God. Agnostics lack faith and atheists do not believe in faith. Do you see my point? In other words, agnostics have the capacity but do not have faith.
Spankydaham924 1 year ago
@Spankydaham924 You are wrong. Atheists do not necessarily say there is most definitely not a god. That would be an Gnostic Atheist. An Agnostic Atheist would be someone who says they don't think there is a god but they ultimately cannot know. A Gnostic Theist would say there is certainly a god. An Agnostic Theist would say they think there is a god but ultimately they cannot know. Good lord.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@Spankydaham924 A "quick wiki" on the subject will tell you as much. I guess you just aren't able to understand things.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness I didnt understand your comment becuase you phrased things so awkwardly. It turns out that the words you used were incorrect. You dont make any sense. You said "Atheism and Agnosticism are on different plains". But then you contradict yourself by saying 'You can be an Agnostic Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist." Agnosticism means (like I said) will not concede that there is a god nor will they deny that there is not. That is completly different from atheism. Verstehest du?
Spankydaham924 1 year ago
@Spankydaham924 No. You are a moron. I didn't contradict myself. Being Christian and being Liberal are on separate plains. But you can be a Christian Liberal. I will send you a link to a chart to illustrate to you what I'm saying because words don't seem to be doing it.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Ok, let's take our morality from the Bible then. We can have slaves, and it even tells us how to beat them. Fantastic. Let's stone adultresses, homosexuals and unruly children too. Lovely. No Christians, other than the Westboro Baptists and a few more loons would follow all of the 'morality' from that book. Where do you get your morality from then?
Yes, I believe things. Everybody does. I just like to believe things that have been shown to be true, or the most likely explanation.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Ok so now your using those nut jobs to get a point somehow right?? Yeah not all christians are like that but hey think what you will. On another note what is logic? what is truth to you?where does your logic come from?Who decides logic? How do you know your logic is true logic?
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z If you were capable of reading you would have seen that that was exactly what I said. A tiny minority of Christians think that way. But they are the ones who are actually following what the Bible says, so where are the rest of Christians getting their morality from? I don't think it is necessary to believe that I have an invisible being watching me to do the right thing. Why do Christians feel they can't be good without an overseer?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Logic, in the context in which I am using it, is the analysis of arguments based on the facts available to us. Fact: a book was written over a period from 3,000 to 1900 years ago. Fact: Nothing from that book has ever been validated through empirical evidence. Fact: Much has been debunked, such as the creation myth, Noah's flood, the slavery of the Jews in Egypt, etc. Fact: No information is provided in the Bible that would not have been available to bronze age people.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Ok you didn't answer my questions you just went on a rant about "facts" or what facts are to you. Which makes them subjective Oh really debunked odd becuse ive seen a lot that says it isn't debunked but man your just militant no wonder atheists are 0.7% of the us population. Your using nothing but materialistic philosophy hence that is why your morals are bound to change and will change. Also how are those facts?? did you google those as well?? Internet atheists these days
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z If you require Google for the facts I listed, I am sorry for you. Where did you see different, answers in Genesis? I wouldn't care if I was the only atheist. The number of people believing something has no bearing on its veracity. Thankfully, I live in Europe, where many countries have thrown off those fairytales almost entirely. I did not go on a rant. First I explained the logical process. Then I listed some of the inputs into that process.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 So im guessing you alienated your family then as I often hear that story from atheists. Because most the time they think they are smarter then everyone else. Your a materialist and a lapsed catholic
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z My brother is also an atheist and truth be told, so are my sisters but they just don'tlike to admit it I think. I alienated nobody. I was the first, but my whole family are reasonable people, not so attached to any belief that they would not question it. Yes, I am a materialist and an atheist, and proud of both.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Ok so that means everything is subjective to you because you only follow the laws of the land. Seriously you arguing for materialism and atheism seems to me useless and it does alienate people because you seem to think your smarter then everyone else and you go around mocking people who don't think the way you do. That it seems to me would make most if not all atheists nothing but bully's who enjoy mocking and insulting other people. Which is counter productive to anything
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I do not mock anyone for their beliefs, unless they try and push theirs on me. If I am asked my opinion on any religion and on the existence of God then I will argue my opinion and argue it forcefully, but I do not go around bringing up the subject with people who do not invite it.
Atheism is just non belief in the claims put forward. I can only rely on the logic that we all use in our everyday lives, and that tells me the claims ring false. I am willing to change if new facts emerge.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Well isn't it ironic then that your trying to push your's on me then your such a hypocrite. Atheism is a religion even though its not tax exempt like VincentTruman said I use logic but I also think you can't apply it to everything. Trying to apply it to everything would make things more complicated then they really are and you can't define logic well so im not going to ask you what it means. Logic doesn't work for everything it can help with somethings but doesn't answer it all.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I think you will find, if you go back through the messages, that it was in fact you who addressed me first. I merely responded to your message to me.
I do not agree. Logic does not complicate anything; quite the opposite.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Actually it does because some things can't be explained through logic. I have found that people say they use logic but more often then not they use their feelings. You sound like atheism was a emotional choice and not a logical one for you. Which begs the question what is true logic besides saying we use it in our everyday lives. But you never define what logic that is or what made logic to begin with but rather saying logic again and again. Although you try to define it you cant
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Logic, in the context in which I am using it, is the analysis of arguments based on the facts available to us. It is devoid of emotion.
Theists are simply unable to understand what it must be like not to believe in God. I can assure you, it feels no different to not believing in Santa Claus.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 logic that we use in our everyday lives you mean feelings right?? Because it seems to me you are unable to deine it other then we use it in our everyday lives. Now I could say I use common sense everyday but sometimes people don't use common sense because it isn't needed in every situation. Now since your using your feelings as logic your right we do use our feelings everyday. So what logic are you talking about again?? Cause feelings aren't logical all of the time
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I was not referring to feelings. Of course feelings play a big part in life, but I only have feelings for and about those things and people that I can see, or that I have seen. Feelings do not play a part when appraising an argument such as the theist one. A claim is made. A book is written. That book is used as evidence for the claim. There is no other evidence. It is as simple as that. Unless you have any other information that would sway me, I think we must agree to disagree.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Yes I think that would be best however I wish you the best :) even though we disagree on most everything
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Yep, all the best :)
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Oh and also atheism is a religion the belief in non belief which is pretty ironic considering. Most atheists don't like it being called a religion because it would make them the same as thoughs they so hate or in your case want to educate. With supposed higher knowledge and logic based on reason and logic which begs the question where did logic and reason come from and how do you know your logic and reason is the right logic and reason. Other then you saying it us the right logic
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z "Most atheists don't like it being called a religion"
If atheism was a religion, why isn't it tax exempt - as religions are? Why won't atheists criticize homosexuals for the the way they lead their lives - as religions do? Why aren't there atheists blowing themselves up in marketplaces - as the religious do? Why aren't there stories of atheists fucking children right and left, while simple, sheep-like followers do nothing to help these children?
Sorry, bloJOBz.
VincentTruman 1 year ago
@bigJ09z As I already explained to you, the vast majority of Christians change their morals over time as well. Perhaps that is why you are no longer embarking on crusades ordered by the Pope? And why women are no longer treated as their father's or husband's chattel. And why you don't keep slaves. This means that you must be getting your morality from another source than the Bible, even if you don't know it.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Man for being so smart you really are stuck back in the stone age the bible never said keep slaves. I actually get my morality from the bible what is right and wrong and so on even though I mess up often. I see your intentions aren't good as you wish to knock the crutch from out from under people despite you saying your intentions are good ive seen nothing but evil from them. So im going to assume your actions are done with evil intentions. Im not catholic by the way
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I have read the Bible cover to cover and it certainly does advocate keeping slaves. You can't take them from your own tribe though. You also can't beat them so hard they die on the spot. If you don't believe this, I can look up the chapters for you.
I do not believe that there is ever a good reason to believe what is not true. I do not accept the crutch argument. It is because I care about other people that I seek to get them to question unfounded beliefs.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 You aren't helping anyone though your just running them off not helping anyone. Your nothing new to this world at all your more evangelical then most religious nutjobs I have seen. Which says something because your advocateing for things of a destructive nature that won't help people. Your intentions aren't good in the end they are bad because you have only shown me how arrogant and how ignorant most atheists are. You must live in a world where everyone is dumb and stupid but you
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z You have clearly always believed what you have been told and have looked for information that backs up your previously held beliefs. You have probably never sought to question these beliefs, and the best you can do to defend them is to attack people who do question them.
I was baptised a Catholic and attended a Catholic school for the entirety of my pre university education, but I have always sought to question everything and read everything, and I was an atheist before Google began :)
truthiness2010 1 year ago
I saw that Red Eye episode and Penn mentioned something about the Insane Clown Posse during the Atheist talk and before he can say what he said, it went to commercial break and ICP was never mentioned again.
Why was Penn talking about ICP in the discussion unless it was about the Miracles music video.
DatFatPat 1 year ago
SE Cupp is probably the most overrated person alive. She is so fucking ugly.
katesofly 1 year ago
S.E. Cupp needs her Hole Stuffed!
kosmicvodku 1 year ago
They were mass murderers who were atheists, yes (Hitler is questionable but I accept for sake of argument). They replaced religion with their own ideology. This is against all reason and any decent atheist would have been as opposed to this ideology as to theology, moreso because of the horrors that were being committed. I do consider the people chanting in Nuremburg to be sheep. What would you call them? Atheism is not a belief. It is disbelief without evidence and the antithesis of ideology.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigJ09z 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. - Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941
JOHNLENNONWINZ 1 year ago
Do I believe she will finally see God? Maybe. I've read her work and I will tell you she speaks more about sovereignty than anything else. In my opinion, she understands that concept and is aware change can be possible. Just speaking in retrospect.
Were all smart enough to acknowledge faith, but stupid enough to blame it.
conservativesaiyan 1 year ago
Is fair to say that shes already perceived as a different character. And if she does find God, then all hell is gonna break lose. I will say that people unfairly crucify her, they challenge her and is OK, nothing wrong. I highly adore the woman but even I know whats going on. I do believe by heart she does believe, but unfortunately, she makes it easy for her opponents to challenge her.
conservativesaiyan 1 year ago
George Carlin went on Fox News. So does Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and lots of other non-crazies. No need to apologise sir.
RedtreeJoe 1 year ago
She does not confuse people because of her conservatism. She confuses people because she has no clear idea of what an atheist is or why atheists are atheists. She also writes books/pieces defending Christianity. An atheist? Please.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Are you by any chance one of the people who thought that Pat Condell "betrayed atheism" by encouraging people to vote for UKIP?
Atheism is about reason and facts, not political correctness and collectivism.
ErikMartin81 1 year ago
@ErikMartin81 No, I am not one of those people. On the contrary, if I was a UK voter I believe that there is every chance I would vote for UKIP myself. Indeed, I am in full agreement with his position on Geert Wilders. I do not in any way view atheism and hardline liberalism as synonymous.
I know atheism is about reason and facts, the exact reason that I am an atheist. I do not believe that S.E. Cupp understands this, and that is why I do not believe she is an atheist.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Glad to hear your thoughts on Pat Condell and the UKIP. I'm sorry for having unfairly accused you.
ErikMartin81 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Atheism has never been about reason or facts its been about subjective facts and supposed reason. Atheists to me are nothing more then people claiming to know everything and knowing nothing yet they claim to know everything. I think no true atheist exists just a bunch of people who claim to be because its rebellious in nature and they can attack religion because they aren't "religious". Basicly I find "atheists" to be loud mouthed hypocrites like christians are a lot of the time.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z What a load of twaddle. What the do you mean by 'subjective facts'? I assume you are referring to opinions, like the opinion that the universe was conjured up by an omnipotent deity. Atheism is based on one fact, the fact that no evidence whatsoever has been presented by the religious to prove the existence of a deity. That's it. I went to a catholic school and I figured out the absurdity of the religion lessons at about the same time as Santa. No rebellion, just common sense.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Well you see here is where I have a issue with Atheism they claim to know everything like you do. I like how you somehow how feel the existence of deity is absurd yet you fail to realize your way of thinking is even more absurd. "Facts" as you put are subjective ive heard this time and time again. But you comparing god to santa isn't that shocking cause that is all you have it seem's. All I see is ego and arrogance not facts im common sensed but im not a atheist. Thank goodness.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I did not claim to know everything. In fact, I made no claims whatsoever. You are the one claiming the existence of a deity. Tell me why I should believe your claim. What is the evidence you used to come to the conclusion that such an entity exists? I am willing to believe in the existence of a deity, or indeed any other supernatural force for which sufficient evidence is presented. Of course at that point it will have ceased to be viewed as supernatural.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Is that all you can go on is "evidence" what do you want me to say huh?? Even if there was "evidence" you would likely want more and more "evidence". The evidence argument is kind of vauge to me you say you want evidence yet you never say what kind and when and if evidence is shown you say its not good enough. So yes I think its subjective as for common sense faith doesn't require "common sense" although in this day and age people use that term often. But I don't everything :)
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I believe that the universe was expelled from a huge cosmic toad by way of flatulence and I believe that all life is descended from the parasites on the toad. Do you believe my claim? If not, why not?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Hmmm I see what game your trying to play intresting strategy but flawed as well. Lets put it this way life is to complex for some big bang thoery to have worked and I resent your mocking tone which is in fact counter productive to your cause. To me it shows that if all you can resort to is mocking then you know your argument is weak and not evidence based but feeling based and like Penn based on pure ego.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Yes, the game is called logic. My claim about the toad is ridiculous and deserves to be mocked. There is no evidence for my fantastic tale at all. All religions represent equally fantastic tales, also based on zero evidence, and deserve to be treated accordingly.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Man lol at least atheists are consistant jerks and narcissists stop using evidence so loosely really. You don't even know what evidence your talking about your being so subjective with it all I see is that your a big loud mouthed religious atheist or in otherwords jerk. What logic by the way the logic of being a jerk or the logic of you are your own god and are nothing more then a egotistical bully. I think actually your more religious then most religious people.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z No, we are being objective. All I ask for is empirical evidence. You don't seem to understand. I don't believe in your god in the same way as I do not believe in the tooth fairy. It is of no consequence to me until I see people making ridiculous, unfounded claims. If there were people on here seriously arguing for the evidence of a tooth fairy I would argue against them too. Indeed a child could provide evidence of the tooth fairy which is more than a religionist can do.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Seriously stop it with the fairy tale comparison it just shows you have no good argument but "logic" and "evidence". No your not being objective your subjective you never define anything there is historical evidence of jesus but wait that is nothing more then a fairy tale to your "enlightend" mind. And please stop shhoting off the "evidence" and "logic" lines it makes you sound desperate to make some point. By the way you sound pretty evangelical to me but with atheism.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Why would I consider the demented scribblings of some bronze age desert nomads to be anything more than fairytales? What better comparison is there? You have absolutely no understanding of what logic, reason and evidence are. I am not telling you what to believe. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of what you do believe. Why do you not worship Allah, Thor, Zeus or Lord Vishnu? Men have lived and died worshipping these gods. What more evidence do you have than they?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 There you go again being evangelical although your a atheist evangelical which isn't shocking. I wouldn't call them demented ramblings but hey I guess a intellectual such as your self would think that I think. For all your talk your nothing more then a evangelical atheist which makes you also a hypocrite which isn't shocking. Considering your a anti theist and it seem's a fool to boot but then again there are a lot of christian fools as well. Welcome to the club
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Oh really? You think the earth was created in six days? That a man can live inside a large ish for 3 days? That genocide is justified if God commands it? That owning slaves is fine? That beating them is also fine, as long as they survive the beating? That stoning adultresses, homosexuals and unruly children is ok? That God is justified in sending bears to slaughter children who made fun of an old man? That keeping preteen girls and slaughtering everyone else is the way to go in war?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Oh boy you really want to get into this?? Ok Stalin 20 million,Hitler over 6 million not imcluding jews,Pol Pot 1.5 million,Mao Ze-Dong 70 million. And what is the logic your using again?? Im confused since you refuse to be specific that isn't a shock though.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z This is hilarious. You think that listing mass murderers is somehow a justification for belief without evidence. These people replace religion with their own evil ideologies. They used that weakness in human beings, the same weakness that causes billions to prostrate themselves before an invisible god. They replaced theology with their own ideology and god with themselves. This shows how dangerous the human impluse to follow like sheep is. Questioning ideology is good for humanity.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Here we go once again with your attacks im using them because they where atheists and because the killed millions. Now you calling people sheep shows you really are nothing more then a bitter person trying to make people who don't think as you miserable. Which you have done a pretty lousy job at I must say all you have done is revealed your nothing but a jerk and a millitant atheist which isn't shocking since the net is full of them. Your a evangelical "atheist"
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I will say this one last time. Atheists are not required to provide evidence. Those making the claim must prove their claim. If you were accused of murder, do you think that you should have to provide evidence to prove your innocence, or that the prosecutor should have to prove you guilty?
Look up 'Gott mit uns'
truthiness2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
superbobbywalker 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 For one, despite the burden of proof being on prosecutors, defendants often supply evidence to "prove" their innocence.
Secondly, why do you get to decide who the burden of proof is on for the god debate? You say theists should prove god exists. But why shouldn't atheists prove god doesn't exist?
This is irrational, because neither side can conclusively prove anything.
superbobbywalker 1 year ago
@superbobbywalker Yes of course if you have evidence to refute your guilt you will present it. However, the burden is on the prosecution to provide evidence of guilt, and if they do not you have no case to answer.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@superbobbywalker If I tell you that I have been abducted by aliens and you do not believe me, do you think that the burden is on you to prove that I have not? No. That would be a large claim by me, with potentially far reaching consequences for humanity, and for people to believe it without evidence would be ridiculous. I don't 'get to decide' anything. The burden of proof is on the claimant. This is a very simple concept that we all use all the time. Only cognitive dissonance excepts religion.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 You're missing the point. Theists don't have to prove anything to anyone. They believe what they want to believe. And atheists don't need to prove anything to anyone. They believe what they want to believe. Nobody really knows they're right, they're all taking some sort of leap of faith, just based on different reasoning.
superbobbywalker 1 year ago
@superbobbywalker No, you are missing the point. Atheists do not have 'faith'. Faith requires one to supress one's reason and to believe a story without evidence. This is what theists do. Yes, people are free to believe what they want, but people who think that it is dangerous for human beings to believe anything on faith have a right to fight it.
This is true for horoscopes, alternative medicine, religion, etc. Although it is unlikely that we will see homeopaths destroy skyscrapers.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Wrong. Faith is coming to a conclusion without conclusive evidence for doing so. Atheists have faith, just as theists do. Agnostics don't have faith, because they're not willing to jump to conclusions in either direction.
And don't start with the "religion is dangerous" stuff, because then you'll have to make more excuses for why some atheists (or at least secularists) in the past did things that were just as bad.
superbobbywalker 1 year ago
@superbobbywalker Agnosticism on its own is a ridiculous position. It just means 'I don't know'. That is the case for all atheists and agnostics too. Nobody knows. However, you can form a belief based on the available evidence. Those positing the claim are the theists. The evidence presented by the claimants is nothing. Therefore, you can on the basis of zero evidence form a position of a disbelief in the claim. There is no faith required for this.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Actually Agnosticism is more sound then atheism because it admits it doesn't know everything. And for heaven sake please stop throwing the word evidence around like it means something when you say it. All ive seen is that you have no positive evidence to back up what you say hell your to chicken to blame people for what is wrong with the world. Also your subjective you can't just say evidence and logic becuase it changes from person to person your argumet is void of any logic.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Did you even read my last comment? You certainly didn't understand it. People who say they are agnostics are fence sitters who have not got the courage to state their opinion. I do not know whether 911 was an inside job or whether we landed on the moon. However I believe, given the evidence, the answers to be no and yes. You can not know ( which is the case for the majority of things in life) and still have an opinion. If I see evidence backing up your claim I will review my position.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 You don't even specify evidence forb heaven sake you use the word so loosely it has no meaning. I could say nature is evidence is that to simple for your arrogant and ignorant self stop preaching reason and actually use it. Cause all you have been doing is showing your more evangelical then anything so you are very much a hypocrite and just a plain douchbag. Now you can't give me any positive evidence for your claims other the ranting and ranting about evidence and logic.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Evidence consists of facts used to back up a claim. Facts are pieces of reality. The moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. Those are facts.
Nature is evidence of what? That your space daddy did it all? Everything in nature used to be explained that way. Now we know what produces rainbows, tides, sunrises, etc. And a god is unnecessary for any of it.
I am not making a claim. I already said, I do not know. I don't believe your claim, and you have given me no reason to.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@bigJ09z And don't talk about logic and reason until you learn what those words mean.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Oh please don't give me that bullshit you don't even know they mean or you abuse the word like you do. I do know what those words mean and they sure son't mean whatever you want them to mean.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z So you believe that when someone makes a claim, it falls to those who do not believe it to disprove it? Ok.
I am assuming you are a Christian? Could you tell me please what the process was that you used to discount Judeism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Rastafarianism, etc., before you settled on Christianity. Presumably you disproved them for yourself? Or are you saying you don't know whether those beliefs are true? And if you don't know about them, how do you know about Christianity?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Ahhh answering a question with a question how smart of you lets just say ive done my research. Historical mostly I know you don't like history that goes against your the bible is a fairy tale and so on because it has fantastic things going on. also Cornelius Tacitus im guessing you don't buy his account or Flavius Josephus account or Julius Africanus account. But wait its a fairytale that was made by peasents and all those other people who where around before you or me.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Even, if you believe those people's (very limited) accounts, all written long after Jesus' death, what does that prove? It proves that Jesus lived. We have a very detailed account of Joseph Smith's life. Does that make Mormonism true?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@bigJ09z For the last time, those making the claim must provide the evidence. This is a very simple concept that most people have grasped by the time they are 3 or 4. Unfotunately some bad people tend to shove nonsense in their heads so that they are able to go through life applying this principle most of the time, but having an area of the brain sealed off that believes without reason.
Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective. Define your god and I will specify the evidence required.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 I see your like a broken record you just repeat the same things again and again and again. Now as for what you where saying or trying to say all I have to say is your elitist you clearly think you are smarter then everyone else. But then again that is typical of a atheist but as for agnostics they admit they don't know unlike a atheist who is nothing but a know it all asshole. So far you proven most what ive heard and read to be true most atheists think they are smarter.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I'm like a broken record? That's because I have to try and explain the same point to you over and over. No, I do not think that I am smarter than everyone else, but I would feel very confident in thinking I am smarter than you.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Wow you hit a all neww high ego wise you really are a narcissistic ego driven person. No wonder all the worlds mass murders have been atheists
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z You are the one who started the ad hominem attacks, my friend. Just knocking one back at you. Religionists can normally be relied upon to begin this fairly quickly. Your argument for your position is so weak, there is no alternative I suppose.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 And atheists tend to be arrogant know it all's and deny historical evidence becuause it doesn't suit their. I guess I could say you have a very very bigoted and hateful view of people of faith because you blame religion for the issues in the world. When in fact it is people who are the issue but you won't admit that because you are to PC and humanism likes to think everyone is good. So the question is what is right and wrong to you what is morality to you?? Or is there none
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I do not believe that everyone is good. I believe quite a lot of people are bad. I think that humanities problems are entirely due to human beings. What other cause would there be? The devil? Yes, I believe religion is a problem, but as it's man-made any problems caused by it are also due to human beings. Morality comes from within and society's views of morality have changed immensely over the last two millenia, while your book's assertions have not.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Ahhh so you prove it you only depend on society's defintion of good and bad therefor it changes constantly. So therefor yours is subjective only to you and what you feel is right at that particular time in the culture. But you just said you believe therefor you do have faith although not in a god or deity but in atheism and secular humanism which can be a religion on its own. So therefor you are accountable to no one and or anything because it doesn't feel right at the time.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
Comment removed
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@bigJ09z I am willing to change any and all of my beliefs, when they have been shown to be false. Many Christians do not share this view. All atheists that I have ever spoken to do.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@truthiness2010 Thank you for proving atheism is nothing but a kind of materialist philosophy.
bigJ09z 1 year ago
@bigJ09z Yes, atheism is based on the material world. ie reality. This is the realm from which you should provide evidence backing up your claims. What else is there that you know about?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@superbobbywalker I am willing to change my position in the morning, if the claimants present sufficient evidence. I do not claim to have knowledge either way, merely that I do not accept the unevidenced claims presented thusfar.
I do not have to excuse the actions of any atheists. Do the actions of atheists have any relevance whatsoever to the veracity or lack thereof of claims made by theists?
truthiness2010 1 year ago
@bigJ09z If that isn't demented, I do not know what is. I do not believe that this god exists, as I do not believe any other gods from history exist. This is not a faith positio