I just want to assure my friend that live in other countries:

Fox News offends millions of Americans.

it scares us that it doesn't offend all

Here is the logical conclusion to this zeitgeist.

>> ^packo:

it scares us that it doesn't offend all


Believe me, It's scares us too.

It really is scary that people have to indulge in fantasy to be able to lead sheep.

When it comes to American politics, the truth doesn't matter as much as popular ignorance and shared stupidity.

Science and truth are banging at the door of intransigent dogma and myth. I have no doubt (as people become more educated) that it will break through that door. But it will be sooner, rather than later, if more "closet" atheists -especially in government- have the courage to out themselves.

I had to laugh at the last bit.

GOP taking nuanced positions. HA!

They get by on sensationalism. The only reason everyone isn't offended and actually buy into the tripe they put out there because fear>rationality and in a society where people don't value education they have a winning business model.

I,like many, go beyond being offended. For example I'd love to make Rupert Murdoch suck butter out of my ass because he has poisoned the minds of countless people.
>> ^packo:

it scares us that it doesn't offend all

<spits out water, jim carey style>

OH COME ON! ONLY 16 PER CENT BELIEVE IN STRICT EVOLUTION WITH NO GOD INVOLVED?

WHAT THE FUCK!?

Knowing american politics exist, is offensive to people on the rest of the "developed" world.

Much respect to Huntsman.

American democracy fail. I wish we could get our 16% of atheists in elected office that represent me and other secular beliefs. The downside is that if it was a complete proportional electorate they'd be drowned out by the 40% of the representatives being complete religious zealots. Ughh, wish there was a better system to get reasonable laws out of our government instead of this lowest common denominator approach that elections bring.

Huntsman certainly seems like the best of the republican field. Not just from his recent statements on science and the debt ceiling, but from my experience living in Utah where he did a lot to moderate an extremely conservative state legislature.

I wonder if liberals should take the effort to vote for him in the primary to help ensure the next republican president is less terrifying than Bush. Or if they should just allow the tea party to nominate someone like Bachmann or Perry in the hopes that they'll be too extreme for the general election.


Here's a few examples of Huntsman standing up to his own the socially conservative LDS church as Governor:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/10/Gov_Huntsman_of_Utah_backs_civil_unions/UPI-69571234319303/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/02/Private-club-law-comes-to-end-in-Utah/UPI-89581246557139/

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13336062

>> ^dannym3141:

<spits out water, jim carey style>
OH COME ON! ONLY 16 PER CENT BELIEVE IN STRICT EVOLUTION WITH NO GOD INVOLVED?
WHAT THE FUCK!?


Don't worry. I think a lot of people who get polled don't really say what they think. I think a lot of people answer polls assuming that somehow someone is going to find out their answer so they go with the safe answer instead of what they really think.

You have to realize that a lot of these sites that atheists congregate on are just echo chambers. The majority of Christians aren't going to be spending any time on sites that showcase secular entertainment and interests. Here is another survey to brighten your day: http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/millennium15.asp


>> ^dannym3141:
<spits out water, jim carey style>
OH COME ON! ONLY 16 PER CENT BELIEVE IN STRICT EVOLUTION WITH NO GOD INVOLVED?
WHAT THE FUCK!?

Not sure I understand why it's a political issue. We are as we are, and I don't see how we came to be has much bearing on politics besides human necessities and what not.

I mean if some dude gets into office and wants to believe God created us and science is crazy talk.....what bearing does that have on 95% of what this guy is going to be doing? I mean he's clearly an idiot to dismiss thousands of years of study and millions of years of proof, but his belief only possibly impacts what is taught in schools as far as I can see.

And just out right forcing kids to study religious beliefs and trying to do away with scientific research and the history behind it is pure ignorance. You should be suspect of anyone who wants to take a whole idea/concept/ideology and throw it away because he doesn't agree.

People SHOULD be more concerned with job creation, ending wars, corruption, and a myriad of subjects that are vastly more important to the functioning of society than the topic of how humans came to be as they are. Just another subject to divide people on and use as a wedge to push an agenda somewhere else.

>> ^Porksandwich:

I mean if some dude gets into office and wants to believe God created us and science is crazy talk.....what bearing does that have on 95% of what this guy is going to be doing? I mean he's clearly an idiot to dismiss thousands of years of study and millions of years of proof, but his belief only possibly impacts what is taught in schools as far as I can see.

Do you really want someone you just described as an idiot running your country? I would rather see someone who's political ideology I disagree with, but I still consider smart (i.e. Ron Paul, if he wasn't an idiot creationist).

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I mean if some dude gets into office and wants to believe God created us and science is crazy talk.....what bearing does that have on 95% of what this guy is going to be doing? I mean he's clearly an idiot to dismiss thousands of years of study and millions of years of proof, but his belief only possibly impacts what is taught in schools as far as I can see.
Do you really want someone you just described as an idiot running your country? I would rather see someone who's political ideology I disagree with, but I still consider smart (i.e. Ron Paul, if he wasn't an idiot creationist).


The point I was trying to make is that believing creationism or not, what they will be influencing has little to do with it. They are super focused on a topic that in the grand scheme of things is important, but the likelihood of that topic being something they would ever have to make a decision on while in office is nil. Now if their beliefs keep them from making decision objectively, that's a different situation.

I mean hell, from what I can gather Stephen Hawking believes in God in some form, but he doesn't let his belief stop him from studying objectively.

I just can't imagine a situation where they would have to make a decision based on creationism versus evolution argument that wouldn't be directly related to school teachings. And anything to do with creationism has religious connotations and I think it should all fall under the separation of church and state no matter what decisions they think they are making.

Or to put it another way: If they believe creationism unconditionally, then they probably believe a lot of other fucked up things that could cause a lot more problems if they got into office. So why are they so focused on a inconsequential part of their belief system and looking for more dangerous areas? There's more than just one belief that makes a person irrational, and being super focused on one that has almost no practical impact on your life is stupid.

IE Bachmann, she's anti-gay...we've seen her cover it. If she were to get any real power she could cause all kinds of issues for gays and their families. That's a real issue. And the even bigger issue is that she has completely avoided speaking about it....which means she's trying to hide a real big portion of her belief system going forward. She hasn't even claimed to have "seen the light" and changed her opinion, she just simply won't talk about it. It shows she can't look at an issue objectively and decide what's best for everyone long term.....she can only look at it subjectively and apply her own beliefs to it or not speak on it at all.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I mean if some dude gets into office and wants to believe God created us and science is crazy talk.....what bearing does that have on 95% of what this guy is going to be doing? I mean he's clearly an idiot to dismiss thousands of years of study and millions of years of proof, but his belief only possibly impacts what is taught in schools as far as I can see.
Do you really want someone you just described as an idiot running your country? I would rather see someone who's political ideology I disagree with, but I still consider smart (i.e. Ron Paul, if he wasn't an idiot creationist).


I sort of agree with porksandwich, what you SHOULD be looking for is a person who is smart enough to realise that he isn't running the country FOR THEMSLVES. I was also an atheist and i was long before it was "cool" to be an atheist. However, what atheists also have to understand is that there are a lot of theists too, and the governance of the country has to reflect both groups of people.

Fortunately, that can be done. Scientists have been exploiting atheism for years to make our lives easier and easier whilst theists reap the benefits of blaspheming without getting their eternal soul dirty.

When i was a kid, the education thing wasn't even an issue i don't think; we taught science and i think religion was mentioned in passing as a sort of "if you want to be religious you can be" kind of thing. But everyone really knew that the sciencey bit was true, and it was easy to know that because there was proof.

You can fit god around your science no problem, but it has to be your own god. I am now agnostic; because it is impossible to know given our current understanding. However, i do believe that there could be a greater being - a god - but he would be MY god, understood in my own way, and not a god pertaining to the major religions.

You can be entirely rational, even academically excellent, and fit your own god around science. Perhaps science is merely discovering and charting an environment created originally by another sentient being? We cannot know and in a way it doesn't matter because if there is a god, imo, he is intangible and therefore has no bearing on science; thus science and religion are married without a problem.

The title here (re being "offended") brought up @alien_concept 's sift of comedian Steve Hughes remarks on being offended. Great stuff, just wish I could promote it since it goes so well with this.

Breaking News!!!

Fox does something outrageously stupid...

wait, doesn't everyone already know this?

>> ^shinyblurry:

You have to realize that a lot of these sites that atheists congregate on are just echo chambers. The majority of Christians aren't going to be spending any time on sites that showcase secular entertainment and interests. Here is another survey to brighten your day: http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/millennium15.asp


Rofl, 87% belong to a religion, but only 32% actually attend a service one or more times a week...

I believe le bible refers to that as 'lip service' and it's not something to boast about... X D

/religioustrollfail, can I get an amen?!?!?

Rational thought - offending conservatives since 196... err, forever.

How many people say they're christian just because they want to blend in?
Of those Christians, how many actually go to church?
Of those that go to church, how many go to church purely because they feel they have to or go for secular reason (social networking, etc)
Of all the people who are supposedly christian, how many of them just pray simply because it feels comforting but don't actually think a god is really listening, nor do they believe prayer influences reality.

Christians aren't the majority you think they are.