PeeZee has posted a video showing Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly braying about the legality of the National Day of Prayer (recently declared unconstitutional). He links to a video of Dan Barker (who, with his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor, heads the Freedom From Religion foundation) schooling a Fox Newsmoron on why our country does not have “Judeo-Christian roots.” I thought I’d put this up because Barker dissects the interrogator so deftly:
Would it be oxymoronic to say “God bless Dan Barker”?
Good grief, that was the most relaxed and polite utter smackdown I’ve seen in a while.
I will not watch Palin or O’Reilly because I know that only mucous spews from them. I did see the Dan Barker clip where he ripped apart one of the ignorant liars of Faux news.
That was very nicely done. He made his points (very strongly) and did not go off in tangents or into personal animus. I found the logic very convincing but I’m thinking that the line from the tv show House applies: “Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there wouldn’t be religious people.”
Is it a pre-requisite to be a cocksucker to work for FauxNews?
Just that I haven’t seen anyone there who isn’t one (of the few I have seen).
One thing for sure, they never seem to have done their homework, but just display ignorant and opinionated drivel.
Shep Smith of Fox News is actually a pretty good interviewer. I don’t watch Fox News enough to see him on my own, but on a number of occasions his interviews have been highlighted and spread as video clips around the web, usually by people critical of Fox’s general standards.
I was astonished at how (relatively) good the interviewer was. Yes, he bleated the usual nonsense, but when Dan Barker was talking, he sat quietly and listened. I thought allowing your guests to finish a sentence was grounds for dismissal at Fox.
They’ll probably find a reason to sack him soon.
Though he did tell lies about the constitution so not entirely un-Faux News!
Think you’re right, Janet.
The bloke was not nearly the ignorant, rude, and inane loud-mouthed snuck to last with FauxNews, as he hardly interrupted when Dan Barker didn’t say what FN-viewers want to hear.
Still a cocksucker though.
That was masterful. Wow.
Dan Barker used to be a priest. He wrote a very good book about his de-conversion, “Losing Faith in Faith”.
Science bless Dan Barker?
Dan Barker is great. I’ve never seem him lose his cool or not have his facts lined up. His delivery reminds me a lot of Tommy Smothers, someone else I admire. Similar voices and accents.
some how i feel that his words fell on deaf ears at fox news.
Is he the most intelligent man ever to appear on Fox?
As a resident of the UK I’m not in a position to judge :o)
I believe Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Bill O once.
I know I sound like a liberal atheist fan-boy, but Bill-O has interviewed both Colbert and Stewart. Both were wonderful!
And of course when they put Dan’s name on screen they said ‘Freedom for Religion Foundation’.
Does FarkSnooze actually pay people to operate their equipment, or do they just use interns for everything?
I thought it was just that the interviewer thought you can’t say that on TV, that saying “freedom from religion” is like saying “fuck”. If you pay attention, he kind of stumbles over it, like it’s some words you can’t say.
Faux has a very amusing tendency to mislabel people who they don’t like. Typically, they do this by declaring politicians to be Democrats instead of Republicans (personal fave was when they did this with John McCain).
Barker’s comments fell on willfully ears at Fox News.
That is “willfully ignorant” ears.
It was near-perfect, however I’d bet that Mr. Barker’s noting the importance of “respecting an” as part of the establishment clause sailed over the heads of most people. An easier way to explain a similar but not exact point is to note that the framers were smart enough to realize that the religious freedom clause alone was insufficient in protecting our ‘freedom of conscience’ rights. That was the motivation for having a rarely noted numerated prohibition of government power afforded by the establishment clause. In fact another rare limitation of power documented in the Constitution is the ‘no religious test’ clause.
I also constantly observe know-nothing Christianists dishonestly portraying themselves as if they are up to speed on church-state matters and American history who defectively conflate the DofI with the Constitution as this Fox entertainment “broadcaster” did. In fact Sarah Palin also dishonestly did it on BOR’s show.
They must not have quoted Barker’s own book to him. This has the real pwn-age — http://tinyurl.com/yezurmg
There’s that classy New Atheism in action. Ironically, the commenter criticized Fox for displaying “ignorant and opinionated drivel.”
Of course the atheistic worldview has no grounding for rationality and no reasoning for pride even if it could ground it — just the endless blind collisions of molecules making you think you are rational.
Of course the atheistic worldview has no grounding for rationality and no reasoning for pride even if it could ground it — just the endless blind collisions of molecules making you think you are rational.
Indeed. As everyone knows, only faith in Zeus can provide that grounding. It’s a pity all those Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and so forth can’t accept that – but hey, that’s denial for you.
“There’s that classy New Atheism in action. Ironically, the commenter criticized Fox for displaying “ignorant and opinionated drivel.””
There’s that classy Fox News supporter spouting non-relevant generalizations while passive-aggresively insulting everyone’s intelligence.
“Of course the atheistic worldview has no grounding for rationality and no reasoning for pride even if it could ground it — just the endless blind collisions of molecules making you think you are rational.”
Of course the religious worldview has no grounding for anything and no reasoning for pride – just the magic man in the sky making you think you are right when performing actions that anyone sane would deem harmful.
Cute. Seriously cute!
Yeah. And the “collisions of molecules” when proteins are involved are nothing but “blind” but selective.
Say, I’ve read something about how the direction of selection results in stuff like species. Evo… evlo… evilution, or something like that. Must be hard on the religious fanatics to hear about nature.
“nothing but”… bleech, I need more coffee…
“There’s that classy New Atheism in action.”
Fortunately for the point being made and the discussion at hand, that one guy’s “cocksucker” comment -though admittedly not particularly classy- had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the state of Fox’s journalistic integrity. I didn’t particularly like the choice of words myself because one could take it as implying that there is something wrong with, or bad about, gays. Those guys get enough abuse that they probably don’t need it unexpectedly coming at them from the progressive side as well. I prefer a term like “shithead”, “ass-clown” or “bastard” in this situation. “Son of a bitch” or even “asshole” would function pretty well here, too.
“Of course the atheistic worldview has no grounding for rationality and no reasoning for pride even if it could ground it — just the endless blind collisions of molecules making you think you are rational.”
This last section doesn’t even seem to make any sense. It starts with what appears to be accidental misuse of a common phrase (grounding *in*, maybe?), then says something esoteric about the logic or rationality of pride (what does pride have to do with reasoning? And what’s the point of “pride” in this context, anyway?), follows it up by mentioning something indefinite doing something (grounding! We’re really concerned about grounding!) to something else indefinite and then finishes it all off with a bunch of Lovecraftian syllables which seem to lack meaning completely but I guess sound kind of cool to the person saying it – if intoned properly.
Not only that, but if you think, like I do, that it really IS the blind collision of molecules that ultimately created the conditions that eventually allowed life and therefore thought -as opposed to, like, a dude, in the sky- it sounds a little bit like you’re switching sides right at the end of your big exciting finger-in-the-air moment, doesn’t it?
Oh for love of god, why the hell am I commenting on shit on the web? I know better than to actually read people’s asinine “comments” when browsing! Why am I such a fool? It must be because I have work to do!
Having grown up in a “America is a Christian country” family, I can tell you that their arguments pretty much consist of the following:
1. Quoting mentions of the creator from the DOI and other Founding Fathers. The fact that these statements and the DOI are not involved with law is ignored.
2. Stating most Founding Fathers were Christians. The fact that many were deists or were something very unlike evangelical Christians is ignored.
3. Lots of repetition that this country, IS, in fact, a Christian country…
It’s not easy to get through to these people.
I always enjoy the FFF newsletter as well — the subscription was a thoughtful gift from my wife’s grandmother (who is living proof that “new atheists” have been around since WWII!)
Straw man. Who said faith was required to understand that atheism can’t ground rationality (or morality, for that matter)? Just random chemical reactions making you think you are rational and that you have a reason to be proud of that.
Remember, your beloved naturalism — if it wasn’t such a pathetic, self-delusional lie — would be 100.00% responsible for all world religions. The universe came into being from nothing, life came from non-life and evolved to elephants, caterpillar/butterflies, Angelina Jolie, etc., and even evolved to me thinking that the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was true — http://tinyurl.com/ykzpu42 . Quite a fairy tale you have going there.
Keep the fallacies coming, you guys are a machine. And be careful not to quote Dan Barker’s books to him! He hates that.
Yes, you’ve got plenty of experience with straw man arguments, don’t you?
Thanks so much for the concern trolling. If you insist plese preperly thread it after Wowbagger’s response above.
Don’t you love people who claim to know things they couldn’t possibly know and yet tell us to “Keep the fallacies coming”? It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and typical.
Now I better get back to my godless, naturalistic and “pathetic, self-delusional lie” of life (tear rolls down face…).
There there, you will find comfort in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, one day you too will be touched by his noodly appendage.
Just random chemical reactions making you think you are rational and that you have a reason to be proud of that.
Where has anyone expressed pride in being the result of ‘random chemical reactions’? Links if you’ve got them.
The universe came into being from nothing…
Who said they believed the universe came into being from nothing? I’m an atheist and I certainly don’t believe that.
Strawman indeed.
Only someone completely intellectually dishonest would think that was a reasonable argument against atheism.
Only a moron would think that was a reasonable argument against anything.
Only someone pathetically self-deluded would think that was a reasonable argument against naturalism.
Say, what does Angelina Jolie herself say about God?
“There doesn’t need to be a God for me.”
Well.
Evolution does not result in completely sane, honest and intelligent people evolving 100% of the time.
Alas.
No, sadly, and a lot devolve as they become infected with the god virus almost as soon as they pop out.
Neil, I think you’re confusing Atheism with reductionism, which is an understandable (albeit silly) mistake. The two are not synonymous. Also, where did you learn that chemical reactions are random? Again, you may be confusing terms – chemical reactions are stochastic processes, not random ones. While these two points may seem pedantic, they essentially undermine the validity of your argument.
“The universe came into being from nothing, life came from non-life and evolved to elephants, caterpillar/butterflies, Angelina Jolie, etc., and even evolved to me thinking that the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was true — http://tinyurl.com/ykzpu42 . Quite a fairy tale you have going there. ”
Xians often believe that the universe came into being from nothing (God willed it into being, despite the bible implying that it was here before God decided to do anything with it, he just organized it), so this is worthless. Xians also believe that life came from non-life (dust, I thought). Xians believe that it sprang fully formed (far more ridiculous than a piece by piece process). Quite a fairy tale indeed for Xians.
Basically every complaint you listed against atheism goes doubly for Xianity.
And yes, the process of evolution included evolving you and evolving your thought patterns. Evolution has no direction, so traits that can be negative are expected, in fact they are predicted, by the theory of evolution.
So, basically you have listed nothing relevant or even rational. I award you no points.
I, sir, was thinking through your deep and intricate argumentation there and i couldnt help but ask myself: LOLWUT?
That wasn’t a straw man but an apt analogy.
In any case your argument fails. The rationality of atheism is either that, religion isn’t a ground for rationality because there isn’t a specific religion to ground in. Or the rationality is found in empiricism, i.e. science that we can observe is working.
“random chemical reactions”. Again, chemical reactions isn’t random but selective. That is what chemical reactions _is_ after all, not random aggregation of atoms into dust but selective assembly of specific molecules. And out of selectivity comes, in the end, evolution.
“The universe came into being from nothing”. That is certainly one possible pathway, we can observe systems spontaneously make order out of disorder every day. Other possible pathways are various kinds of eternal multiverses.
No skin of anyone’s nose but the religious, who irrationally deny possibilities we see in front of our eyes every day.
“life came from non-life”. “Life”, as you put it, is simply the process of evolution. That process is based on mechanisms such as variation and selection which works inside and outside of evolution.
There isn’t a sharp division that you can draw between populations that aren’t subject to evolution and those that are any more than you can draw sharp divisions between the populations themselves in all cases, the lines are fuzzy. What would be the criteria? Religion, for one, certainly can’t tell us. So this is absolutely a no go as far as religion goes.
“Keep the fallacies coming”. As you haven’t pointed out any fallacies yet (while you made many of your own), what exactly do you mean here? That you invent a “Straw man” to poke us? Sure, we get that.
“Just random chemical reactions making you think you are rational and that you have a reason to be proud of that.”
Argument from laughable ignorance. If all we were was random chemical reactions, then we’d all be dead and there would be no living things. Please, try to put some education into gear before setting your mouth in motion.
“Remember, your beloved naturalism — if it wasn’t such a pathetic, self-delusional lie —”
The only lie here is the totally unsupported claim that there’s something more than nature at work. Whenever you can actually support that claim, then by all means post your evidence right here and let’s all see it. Or you can dishonestly continue to pretend that they who have solid scientific evidence have nothing, and you who have nothing have a clue.
“The universe came into being from nothing”
If there was indeed quite literally nothing, then what was there to prevent quite literally anything from happening? Answer; quite literally nothing.
“life came from non-life”
That’s what the scientific evidence shows. What evidence do you have for your position? None. QED.
“and evolved to elephants, caterpillar/butterflies…”
That’s what the scientific evidence shows. What evidence do you have for your position? None. QED.
” and even evolved to me”
Now that is a stretch.
” thinking”
But that’s an even bigger stretch.
” that the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was true — http://tinyurl.com/ykzpu42
There is no objective evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god. There’s objective evidence that a lot of simplistic people swallowed the fables, but none for the root of the fables themselves.
“Quite a fairy tale you have going there.”
This from the evidence-free zone? LoL! Do you do stand-up comedy? I can think of a lot of venues where your schtick would create mondo belly laughs.
“75% of the same scholars agree that the tomb was empty.
I submit that the physical resurrection of Jesus best accounts for these facts.”
This is from the website you linked, that’s supposed to make me convert? If this is what passes for logic with you guys, count me out.
“I know that my car keys exist. I observe that my car keys are not on the hook by the door. I submit that the physical resurrection of these car keys best accounts for these facts.”
How can anyone watch that Palin interview and come away thinking she’s a viable candidate for anything, including “Hockey Maaam”. Come to think of it, how can anyone watch that Palin interview?
Drugs?
Have at least a few barf-bags ready while suffering.
Ah, the Big Book of Atheist Sound Bites strikes again!
No time to refute them all, here’s a freebies:
“Or you can dishonestly continue to pretend that they who have solid scientific evidence have nothing,”
Circular reference. You can’t use scientific evidence to prove that you should only trust scientific evidence. You trust all sorts of evidence all day every day but resort to scientism when ignoring the most obvious evidence of all.
Thanks for the grins.
Perhaps, Neil, you’d like to give us your evidence for the existence of hell, and for your knowledge about how God’s mind works. Or are you basing all your “evidence” on scriptures alone? If we’re talking evidence here, you’re not immune.
Many LOLz to be had here.
Thanks for the link! Yes, be sure to visit and read it all. Best case: You’ll see the truth, repent and believe. You’ll be forgiven of all your sins, be adopted as a child of God for eternity and more. Worst case: You can continue in your denial and have some LOLz. You can’t lose!
Why should we call something made up the truth?
Repent from not believing make-believe?
Why should we believe make-believe?
The sin of not believing make-believe?
And we will know that this make-believe is true because we believe it. Yeah, that makes so much sense.
A free blender? Maybe a toaster?
Hey, fun to find this site. For the record, I never said I did not like my books being quoted back at me. That’s what my OPPONENT said I said. I told him I was happy to have my books quoted. What I was objecting to in that debate — if you will actually listen to it — was 1) he was using his Opening Statement as a Rebuttal, not as a development of his own position, and 2) he was rebutting issues that I had not raised during my Opening Statement; in fact, I had not done my Opening Statement yet. I did NOT object to him quoting from my book. I objected to his tactics of attacking issues that were outside of the debate, which amounted to an attempt to destroy my credibility, not destroy the arguments. After I made this formal objection to the moderator, my opponent twisted it to make it look like I was uncomfortable with being quoted, spinning it to look like I was embarrassed with my own words!
That’s odd, the video shows something entirely different and addresses the excuses made in your comment — http://tinyurl.com/yezurmg . Hopefully people will view the evidence and decide for themselves.
More analysis here – http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3517 .
Give it a rest. Nobody here is going to buy your obvious attempts to troll.
Aaahahahahahaha. The usual religiotard stuff. But the constitution mentions a “creator”, so we’re a christian nation! Constitution, Declaration of Independence – whatever – what’s the difference? The gubbmint’s bein’ told not to pray – they want to crucify all us religious folks!
Going back to the AU site, I see a preacher bemoaning a court decision to allow a cross to remain on display in a public park; like many clerics in the early days of the USA, some people still acknowledge that the greatest threat to their religious freedom is every other goddamned religion around and the influence they may exert through the government, and pushing even their own religious agenda just invites all out religious wars to control the government.