The inclusion of non-believers (which is a dumb term) was a good one. A first step into a bigger world.

More like Governor Whogivesafuckabee. Pretty sweet deal to be Chuck Norris' sidekick, though.

As far as I'm concerned, Mike Huckabee (and his opinions) are little more than irrelevant.

The "Non-believers" part was one of the only bones he throws to "my kind".

Mike Huckabee, he isn't part of my world. I wouldn't want him to be.

i like the ad for meeting atheist women that pops in at the beginning.

Including tax-paying, voting "non-believers" in with the rest of country instead of purposely marginalizing us?

About damn time.

The non-religious are the last minority that it's OK to hate, but there's no way Fox news doesn't land on the wrong side of history for remarks like this.

I really don't get why people could be offended by the mention of the existence of other belief (or non-belief) systems. Of course, that goes both ways for me - theist/atheist or atheist/theist. Anyone offended over the mere acknowledgement of 'other' systems is clearly afraid that thier own system is too weak to withstand the existence of a different one. Real believers with proper perspective are not threatened by the existence of other systems.

What I see as a far more pernicious issue is the regular denigration of belief systems in the popular media. Having a difference of belief isn't a bad thing, and yet the media constantly portrays people of faith in a singularly negative light. Getting mad over someone just 'mentioning' a different system is pitiful and cowardly, but to actively pursue a campaign of disinformation and denigratory propoganda is quite another.

Personally I balked a little at the use of the word unbelievers. It really sounds a little crusades-ish. Honestly, we don't mind being called atheists and spineless agnostics

hehe they zoomed in on her boobs

FOX is offensive.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."

What about Buddhists, Scientologists and so on?

"Democrat president speaks: Is he lying or just wrong"

-Fox News



Ever think that Fox news would work much better if they included a laugh-track?

Personally I balked a little at the use of the word unbelievers. It really sounds a little crusades-ish. Honestly, we don't mind being called atheists and spineless agnostics


I suppose I'd call myself a "non-believer" rather than an atheist. Atheists have a specific belief that there is no god(s)... I simply think it is unlikely that one or more exists, and that if they do then what I believe doesn't matter to them.

My problem with religion is that it promotes specific beliefs despite the absence of evidence. I tend to see atheism the same way. There is no proof that god(s) doesn't exist, there is simply a lack of evidence that it does exist. It is the baseless certainty that I disagree with.

I don't mind if people want to believe in god(s) or that black cats give you bad luck or whatever, just so long as they aren't passing laws based on those beliefs.

>> ^Psychologic:
...I suppose I'd call myself a "non-believer" rather than an atheist. Atheists have a specific belief that there is no God(s)... I simply think it is unlikely that one or more exists, and that if they do then what I believe doesn't matter to them.

I'd call that being an atheist, or at least an agnostic atheist. I have the same basic thought.
"I don't know, but I doubt it." - Agnostic Atheist

"I simply think it is unlikely that one or more exists"

That's what most atheists think. Most of the time we are agnostic in philosopohy, atheistic in practice. We think that the existance of a deity is highly unlikely, and live our lives as if one doesn't exist.

When he said that portion in the address I at once balked (I hate non-believers, it's like we are not-right), but at the same time rejoiced that the leader of the most powerful country is actually strong enough in his faith and just enough in his views to include everyone. (and to those complaining that he didn't include all faiths in the address... oh come on... it was a symbolic list, and to include atheists over other religions is just to list SOME religions and also those who believe in NO religion, thereby demonstrating he, and everyone in the states (and the world) should accept everyone no matter their beliefs in a divine being).

This is such utter bullcrap beatup pandering to their known base of viewers, hardline right wing christian idiots who can't think for themselves.

I took offense at the amount of praying and other religious claptrap that was laid onto the inauguration. I don't mind if a president/prim minister is religious, and feels they would like to give thanks to their chosen god for the honour of leading a country, but could they do that in a separate service perhaps? Political acts should have no religion in them...

Thank you president Obama for making me feel even slightly less timid about being an atheist.

And may The Schwartz be with you.

I believe 'Rationalists' is the most fitting term. Calling yourself a 'nonbeliever' is like someone who's 'pro-choice' calling themselves 'anti-life.'

Oh ya there's a big god looking after us somewhere....ya think ?

I think good old Monty Python described it best.

"There's nothing an agnostic can't do as long as he doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not."

>> ^chilaxe:
I believe 'Rationalists' is the most fitting term. Calling yourself a 'nonbeliever' is like someone who's 'pro-choice' calling themselves 'anti-life.'




I guess it's because many people define atheism as "a definite belief that there is no possibility of the existence of any god." I suppose the difference is semantics. I can't say that there is no possibility of a god existing, I just have no reason to believe that it matters whether something we never see exists or not. "Rationalist" seems fitting, though I would expect that some people might be offended by the implication of religion being "irrational."

As far as the abortion issue, I approve of "pro-choice vs anti-choice." =)

>> ^Psychologic:
"Rationalist" seems fitting, though I would expect that some people might be offended by the implication of religion being "irrational."

Besides it's perfectly rational to believe the world is ~6000 years old, and that dinosaurs were once beasts of burden for early man.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
>> ^Psychologic:
"Rationalist" seems fitting, though I would expect that some people might be offended by the implication of religion being "irrational."

Besides it's perfectly rational to believe the world is ~6000 years old, and that dinosaurs were once beasts of burden for early man.



I didn't say they were right, I said it would offend them. =)

Fox News saying of words offensive to people born without empty craniums.

It's hard to be offended by Fox News anymore. They've long since lost the element of surprise.

As for which was more offensive, Fox or Huckabee... I'd go with Fox if I had to choose. To me Huckabee's response seemed to be poorly worded but with good intentions.

If you really want offensive remarks about atheists, you need to see Bush Sr.

I don't think Huckabee's response was good intentioned AT ALL. That was the sly way of getting a real stab in at atheists with the religious's usual attack of 'well if you don't believe in god, then what do you believe in?' argument. And they like to say we only believe in us...

It's very passive aggressive, and I dislike that greatly.

>> ^Psychologic:
Personally I balked a little at the use of the word unbelievers. It really sounds a little crusades-ish. Honestly, we don't mind being called atheists and spineless agnostics

I suppose I'd call myself a "non-believer" rather than an atheist. Atheists have a specific belief that there is no god(s)... I simply think it is unlikely that one or more exists, and that if they do then what I believe doesn't matter to them.
My problem with religion is that it promotes specific beliefs despite the absence of evidence. I tend to see atheism the same way. There is no proof that god(s) doesn't exist, there is simply a lack of evidence that it does exist. It is the baseless certainty that I disagree with.
I don't mind if people want to believe in god(s) or that black cats give you bad luck or whatever, just so long as they aren't passing laws based on those beliefs.


Atheists dont have a specific belief in anything, until its backed up with evidence. I don't 'believe' in atheism in the same way that religious people believe in a god. I dont require faith for my 'belief'. That's the key difference. 'there is no proof that god doesnt exist' - that's an incredibly stupid thing to say. There's no proof that anything doesn't exist, it's a redundant statement. The onus is on believers to proove the existence, because their the ones that are claiming it to be true. You can't then turn round to me and go 'well prove he doesn't lol!'

If theres a lack of evidence for a god, then atheism doesn't promote a baseless certainty..........its based on a lack of evidence. promoting atheism is the only thing sensible people can do to save us all from GOING TO HELL. thank god for dawkins in america.

oh - and fox news is so embarassing that its cringeworthy. the fact that its seen as a credible news channel in america. well. what does that say about america.

What's the big deal? B. Hussein Obama was simply appealing to his communist base.

There Fox goes again, showing its true colors. The caption for Obama's speech is "Addresses Muslims, Atheists in speech". Christians, Jews, and Hindus were also addressed by the speech, so why the selective parsing?

There Fox goes again, showing its true colors. The caption for Obama's speech is "Addresses Muslims, Atheists in speech". Christians, Jews, and Hindus were also addressed by the speech, so why the selective parsing?

Not to put to fine a point on it, but every so-called 'news' agency that is broadcasting does the exact same thing just with different biases and focus. Editors and reporters routinely slant the story the way they want. One may well ask, "Why your selective outrage?" Do you carp at CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/AP/PBS and every other news outlet when they eggregiously slant stories to the left? No? Then why get your undies in a twist over Fox? Just because its particular slant goes against your political bias? That's the problem with folks today. They only get mad at the people who say things they don't like and give a total pass to people that lie like a rug about things they are fans of.

Shun! Shuuuun!

Winstonfield_Pennypacker, you assume way to much from a series of three short sentences.

I'm an atheist, or near enough to. I think nonbeliever is a perfectly cromulent term. I don't believe in any particular thing. I'm a nonbeliever.

When an assumption is accurate it is called "superior observational skill". I know 'you' (Flood) don't feel you nailed square. People hate to have thier weaknesses described. So no matter how accurately they are nailed, people will protest that you don't get 'them'. They are different somehow, and so the analysis (which they acknowledge is good for someone else) does not apply to 'them'. To justify it they toss out piddling nuances, tortured distinctions, or half-fabricated idioms... ANY rhetorical life preserver will suffice for them to psychologically rescue their self esteem from drowning in the bitter sea of truth.

The typical 'sift' person was pegged by what I said solidly - right in the gold. A hefty # of sift vids point out Fox news bias. OK fine. Compare this to the ZERO vids pointing out the bias that routinely sluices from the orifices of NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, PBS, BBC, etc etc etc... One can only explain the blatant nature of such omissions by hearking to the bias of the sifters themselves. FOX's bias scourges thier psyche like a cross to a vampire because they are diametically opposed to it. It offends them. It galls them. And so they gleefully (and selectively) cherry pick the worst of the worst to dance around on the sift like so many demons around Satan at Bald Mountain.

But in the interest of giving YOU (Flood) the benefit of the doubt I'm willing to accept your counter-evidence. What comments have you made here that point out the eggregious biases of NON-FOX news agencies?

(I wonder how many 'believers' are just playing the part to avoid being ostracized by their family/community?)

I agree with you Winstonfield, NBC can be as ridiculous and petty as FOX. It's like two schoolyard gangs making fun of each other. Who knew media could be so divisive...

A hefty # of sift vids point out Fox news bias. OK fine. Compare this to the ZERO vids pointing out the bias that routinely sluices from the orifices of NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, PBS, BBC, etc etc etc... ,

Feel free to post some yourself. I'm more than willing to watch the videos you are talking about.

Sigh, I suppose I will have to spell it out for you.

I'm not outraged. What in my comment implied that I was upset in any way?

I don't post any vids, I just comment on them. So I cannot help it if the number Fox News vids is out of proportion. If there is one theme that the majority of my posts take on the Sift, I'd probably generalize it as I "carp" at any vid that conveys an unreasonable message about a topic I have interest in.

Some reports and editorials are obviously slanted to the left or right, and while I'd prefer it to be objective unless done for comedic effect, that is not the true colors I alluded to in my original post. What I'm alluding to is that they have a bias against Muslims and Atheists, which is consistent with other content I have seen come from the Fox News Network.

>> ^direpickle:
I'm an atheist, or near enough to. I think nonbeliever is a perfectly cromulent term. I don't believe in any particular thing. I'm a nonbeliever.


Rather than being referred to as a non-believer I'd much rather our politicians, especially our president, simply address us as "My Fellow Americans", and leave religion out of his speeches.

The problem is that if a pol doesn't address Xians specifically, they get their persecution complex in high gear and start whimpering that everyone is out to get them, but if said pol only addresses them the rest of the religions tend to take offense to them only addressing the Xians. So then they include the other religions, and the atheists pitch a fit because they don't think pols should be addressing religions at all, but atheists are very bad about making their case. So come the next round the pols are so bent on not offending anyone that they read off a list of people to include, when they shouldn't address any particular groups but their citizenry as a whole. But that brings us back to the beginning with Xians whining and bitching because they weren't special.