As funny as it can be when Matt gets frustrated and flat-out mocks the callers, I enjoy it even more when he talks about his personal journey and experience and really reaches out to them to try and have some understanding.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, February 19th, 2011 1:25pm PST - promote requested by xxovercastxx.

That's what started my journey was when I didn't wish harm unto anyone, yet my faith talks about it all the time.

I could never with any conscience level of understanding submit someone to hell; NO MATTER WHAT THEY'VE DONE. Ever.

So many variables create a human. So many variables interact and sometimes FORCE you to think the way you do. This is the modern understanding of the brain. True, free will has and will always be an utter joke. People claim they would not do something in someone else's shoes, but if you impose the same biology and conditions--YOU WILL do EXACTLY the same thing (except for random quantum mechanical variations). In fact when it is said and done your mind will be indistinguishable from theirs.

Throw your old self in your body afterwards and after the nausea and vomiting and the absolute horror of realizing you are nothing but the same thing is gone, you might begin to understand love and empathy. If you already can see this, you have an actual chance to be a moral person. If I sound crazy to you, then you have a lot to learn and live for.

That's it. Faith won't make a decision; reality does that.

This just goes to show how shaky these people's faith is. They live in that world were nothing is ever questioned, and everything is absolutely certain. The bible is real, it was written by god himself, anyone that says anything else is absolutely crazy and you should never listen to them because they are going to hell and if you commingle with them you could jeopardize your position in heaven.

Then of course when they hear an actual opinion outside of their church group they have no answers because they have never even thought of anything besides what their church tells to think. Their positions and ideas of god are so untenable that just the seed of an idea can lead to those people leaving their church. I think it's one of the major reasons why so many atheists are former Christians.

Me, I'm agnostic. I believe in some pretty unusual things, but even those believes are ones I struggle with.

>> ^kceaton1:

That's it. Faith won't make a decision; reality does that.


What does that even mean? Noone is saying faith makes descisions, they are saying you decide to trust faith instead of evidence (and that that is a bad descision) Now you may aruge that you dont really have a choice in the matter because the universe is deterministic, which is an interesting discussion of course.( And one of the more interesting books on this topic IMO is Daniel Dennetts "Freedom Evolves" which he really goes into this subject.)

Whether it is the deterministic universe or ourselves that makes the descision to rely on faith, I'll say its a bad descision either way.

As an atheist named Matt who's birthday is 2/13 and has had half of his fiancée's family consider him 'the devil' because of his (lack of) beliefs... this kinda hits home.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, February 20th, 2011 11:22am PST - promote requested by KnivesOut.

Well...Um...ah....

If I was god, I would have done exatly what "god" has done---create books inspired by hate and save those who DO NOT subscribe to their messages.

Or maybe God does care about those smart enough to rely on evidence, and he uses the double blind placebo? Like I said, follow my word, and be damned. Be smart enough to please me, and be saved. Wouldn't that be some shit? And for those who say, "Oh, but that would make God a liar!" Yeah, so fucking what? I mean, why should "god" tell the truth when truth/lie is a mere means to an end?

Oh, and "Love," and "Truth," is no more a virtue than faith...

Why is Dane Cook calling the Atheist Experience?

wow this is awesome. ants downvote button is still working

I believe because it brings me comfort. Praying makes me feel good and connected to something beyond myself. That's all I need. We really don't know if there is a "Soul" or not, or where a "Soul" goes after the body has passed. Faith and belief get me through each day with the idea that the daily struggle, if not rewarded in life, is rewarded in the afterlife. I think that precludes a religion, and a religion is just a matter of choice. I think their issue is more organized religion, especially some of the born again Christian groups which drive me crazy in their zealous righteousness. I think you can have faith and belief without excluding and without judging. If God and Jesus can accept and love a prostitute, then why the hell can't a Christian love a gay man or an atheist?
I have total respect to all and any beliefs or the lack there of. But I can not tolerate ignorance and closed mindedness.

I think the caller had a "Oh shit, that actually makes sense" moment in the end there

Religious practicioners who follow the precepts of true faith would not dare to presume on a person's ultimate status before diety. Only God himself has the final say. Such judgmentalism is against the precepts of the spoken word, which clearly states "Judge not lest ye be judged" as well as "judge not according to the appearance". True followers labor to correct sin (when recognized) with gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned - not with railing and anger. So -100 Christian points to the caller for being a rather poor example of a follower of God. Maybe he had good intentions, but if so he went in badly.

Now - if you are a theist or Judeo-Christian and believe that God exists then you do well. It is your priveledge to share that belief with others as Christ himself did. The word Gospel means "Good word", and it should always be a positive, affirming message. From the perspective of a believer, guys like these hosts need a loving hand up - not a rude blasting. If you really are concerned about the welfare of their souls, or the effect their negativity about religion may have on others - then the responsibility is to show that you have a better, more positive, more uplifting message to share. Call in and discuss the merits of religious faith. They are many, and provide a basis even an atheist can often agree with.

That all said, the hosts of the show have some pretty odd perceptions of Christianity. Clearly they have been damaged somewhere along the way. Unfortunate, really. To have the perception that Christ's message of peace, patience, and love as a 'monsterous' indicates a predisposition to see the negative while ignoring the positive. That could have been acquired any number of ways, and none of them good.

Matt Dillahunty doin his thang! Go! Go! Go!

Christ's message of peace is a relatively new thing... The sword of God was very, very swift... I mean the newborn son? Those against abortion must have a shit fit about God's Post Term abortion plans! At least the Spartains, who smashed their babies' heads against rocks, only did so for the crippled!

Anyways, this was a good comment by you--not judgmental at all. I will add this--as an Aethist I feel less alone than I ever did when my mother took me to church...

On a side note, I only have respect for a few religions/groups. Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, and druids... But I respect all members of faith on their own actions... So long as we understand what the bible means (Like God's post-term abortion plans when he made the plague.)

Again, great post, for a religious guy that is

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Religious practicioners who follow the precepts of true faith would not dare to presume on a person's ultimate status before diety. Only God himself has the final say. Such judgmentalism is against the precepts of the spoken word, which clearly states "Judge not lest ye be judged" as well as "judge not according to the appearance". True followers labor to correct sin (when recognized) with gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned - not with railing and anger. So -100 Christian points to the caller for being a rather poor example of a follower of God. Maybe he had good intentions, but if so he went in badly.
Now - if you are a theist or Judeo-Christian and believe that God exists then you do well. It is your priveledge to share that belief with others as Christ himself did. The word Gospel means "Good word", and it should always be a positive, affirming message. From the perspective of a believer, guys like these hosts need a loving hand up - not a rude blasting. If you really are concerned about the welfare of their souls, or the effect their negativity about religion may have on others - then the responsibility is to show that you have a better, more positive, more uplifting message to share. Call in and discuss the merits of religious faith. They are many, and provide a basis even an atheist can often agree with.
That all said, the hosts of the show have some pretty odd perceptions of Christianity. Clearly they have been damaged somewhere along the way. Unfortunate, really. To have the perception that Christ's message of peace, patience, and love as a 'monsterous' indicates a predisposition to see the negative while ignoring the positive. That could have been acquired any number of ways, and none of them good.

>> ^rottenseed:

wow this is awesome. ants downvote button is still working


I always thought he had two downvote buttons.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Religious practicioners who follow the precepts of true faith would not dare to presume on a person's ultimate status before diety. Only God himself has the final say. Such judgmentalism is against the precepts of the spoken word, which clearly states "Judge not lest ye be judged" as well as "judge not according to the appearance". True followers labor to correct sin (when recognized) with gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned - not with railing and anger.


Hello, hello, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the first annual True Faith Awards! Our first contender is Mark from Austin TX, And Mark, are atheists going to hell? "-Well, the Bible is pretty clear.." Ok How about contestant B Mr.Winstonfield_Pennypacker? -"Well, the bible says God is the final judge.."

Congratulations, its a tie! Since who the fuck knows, theres no evidence to support either, you both qualify for TrueFaith™ and you win the opportunity to believe unbelievable crap based on your own fallible interpretations of randomly selected, mistranslated copies of copies of documents written in an extinct language by superstitios tribesmen ages ago in the middle east!

As a physicist, I am utterly confused how quantum mechanics plays a role in determining random differences between humans. I think probably chaos is more at work here.

It seems like the rest is conjecture. Even twins sometimes turn out very different. I highly doubt that two people with different genetics when subjected to the same environment and conditioning will arrive at the same end state. There are just way too many variables to assume that that is always true.

>> ^kceaton1:

...True, free will has and will always be an utter joke. People claim they would not do something in someone else's shoes, but if you impose the same biology and conditions--YOU WILL do EXACTLY the same thing (except for random quantum mechanical variations). In fact when it is said and done your mind will be indistinguishable from theirs...

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

As a physicist, I am utterly confused how quantum mechanics plays a role in determining random differences between humans. I think probably chaos is more at work here.
It seems like the rest is conjecture. Even twins sometimes turn out very different. I highly doubt that two people with different genetics when subjected to the same environment and conditioning will arrive at the same end state. There are just way too many variables to assume that that is always true.
>> ^kceaton1:
...True, free will has and will always be an utter joke. People claim they would not do something in someone else's shoes, but if you impose the same biology and conditions--YOU WILL do EXACTLY the same thing (except for random quantum mechanical variations). In fact when it is said and done your mind will be indistinguishable from theirs...



Well to be honest when I wrote "quantum mechanical fluctuations" I'm talking about extremely small scale instances that get "measured" slightly differently (I explain a tad further down below). As particles have a pesky nature of doing two things at once or being measured somewhere else than expected or acting different than expected--it's even been shown to a limited degree that quantum mechanical effects like the dual slit experiment, entanglement, and superposition/duality may have some large scale implications (large scale meaning, the size of a few atoms or a molecule). Anything that would have large scale influences would have to be akin to "The Butterfly Effect". Repeating an event over ,as far as we know, can't be done "perfectly". Hence, the only reason I said fluctuations--yes, folks they would "most likely" be incredibly negligible. Give it 10 billion years then we might have something to talk about (like the small-scale setup at the big bang basically determining the layout and setup of the Universe as we see it now).

Second, what I mean by "wearing someone else's shoes", is to show that that this line of reasoning is impossible as we understand physics and neurology. In my opinion it also shows a very large lack of empathy or understanding in someone. At the least they do not have a good grasp of multiple subjects and how they interrelate; especially concerning the sciences.

I'm saying we would take whatever constitutes "the soul" and stick it in the baby. From my understanding and point of view, as I don't believe in a magical source of self that exists at any level. This would mean, literally nothing changes. Then let things go from there; this really is a time-travel experiment. This is a ludicrous idea. Experience and time, what we face and our decisions, our neurons and their connections and the chemical composition and topography of the brain IS our soul. If you switched places, you WILL be that person; as you don't exist. In your example the other twin would have to literally occupy the exact time and space as her twin--which can't happen; it's untestable. It's a thought experiment. Quantum mechanics would by definition require some changes to occur if "the test" is possible to be created by us--we would change things by interfering in any way.

Only someone religious could ever find a separate or different answer.

I'm talking of a literally switch not a philosophical attributed example (like religion) or a biological test and study of nature/nurture. It is ludicrous, as everything we know about our psyche shows that we experience reality as a type of delusion (practically the only way to describe our reality, psychologically speaking) which can be changed by a great many factors (your biology, drugs, or any interaction). When we communicate to each other (and this is what makes humans so important on Earth and different) we are able to communicate and describe across that sensory and brain created "delusional" void. What can and does get across IS also immense: our experiences, our own point-of-view, our senses, our own delusion. Then we can compare and make a determination of what constitutes reality by ourselves or in a group. Even if someone is high or I should say using anything that will change perception or alter senses, they/we can tell that there is a change through internal logic and experience a new "delusion" or perception. Some religions see this as a way to communicate divinely or likewise; i.e. examples like Native Americans and peyote. It's THE supreme attribute and ability we have as humans as well as "old world" monkeys. They seem to also, "possibly" grasp this "void" and how that barrier can be crossed too. A VERY limited version of ours, however.

We have found ape fossils that suggest that there may've been apes in the past that had I.Q.s in the 300 range. But, without the ability to teach each other, in a very complex manner, they were useless and died off. The fact we can retain old knowledge and teach and re-teach, write it down, save it to a drive, etcetera is the reason why we prosper with a smaller I.Q..

I hope that's much clearer. Or at the least helps. Some is meant for general consumption by others.

/One thing. If you're a physicist as you say, please tell me you don't think "chaos theory" or something akin to it, works on any other level than "maybe" (as we don't know yet) the quantum mechanical level. Everything that is bigger than a particle has very straightforward understandings. Otherwise, we'd have nuclear reactors blowing up everywhere, planes falling out of the sky, etc... Even people would start doing things "for no reason" except: well chaos theory made me do it. If you're talking merely about small-scale interactions still bigger than an atom, then still if you had the detectors, math, and "layout" ready beforehand you'd be able to "predict" an amazing array of things.

The only reason it seems chaotic is sensory and theory deprivation. The main forces of physics (weak/strong/electromagnetism/gravity/pluswhatwefind) describe actions very well. Especially, when we build it.

//Sorry, I think that may be a little too adversarial, but chaos to me is just a lack of "x"--whatever your dealing with.
///Lastly, (a bit more about above) the brain is amazing, but I definitely know I do not even come remotely close to being able to claim I've made a choice due to free-will; modern psychology is starting to understand that this is a fallacy of perception--The Matrix got one thing very right (as much as I hated the second and third shows, THIS was a great line that bears repeating and understanding): It's not the choices that we make that should surprise us, it's why we made the choice in the first place. Free-will is used best with LOTS of pre-planning and thinking ahead; most choices are made for you already. Understanding the way the human brain is doing the stuff it's doing is showing us that "WE" or "ourselves" have a great ability to take horrifically misunderstood or saved-sensory information and make it fit what we want it to fit. It's our rational ability that is the amazing and saving grace for us, or we would ALL be truly mad and lost in our own delusional worlds--each person seeing the world immensely different; like people with illnesses/on drugs/ or having a true mental illness do.

It should be noted that other people can also act like drugs, illnesses, senses, and other type affects on you. Hence, religions do very well at self sustaining belief and manipulation; this goes for all group-think.

A bit long, but this is a subject that I'm impassioned about and I do hope some take it to heart and understand it's implications and ramifications as they're far reaching. It has brought me great peace to know I found some truth in this life. I also have peace in what I would say is my spiritual health (psyche, but more general--including memories and thinking). Losing faith with nothing to use is an extremely disheartening event; I know. Science and understanding helped me transition immensely. I know many others that did not have this to use; I'm not kidding when I say that all sciences and math comes to me easily--many I know don't have this ability. It caused me to fight lies, fear, misunderstandings, and ignorance with patience and the ability to never give up. Truth has one great quality in that it is a lot like water. It finds every nook and cranny on a rock. It goes everywhere and ultimately will collapse and destroy anything that isn't waterproofed and all it needs is time. Ideas are the same, but truth is like water. If you find someone that is willing to at least ask a question of you, that is the half way point. Point them in the right direction and time will cause the change, but they must be curious, steadfast, and ready to question the questions.

Adults are the most lost. With my understanding of the human mind it makes perfect sense why they are the hardest to change. It may eventually be shown that it's impossible to reach everyone, physiological and psychologically speaking. Their own neural pathways and memories literally make it impossible for them to make that change or escape their own delusion, their current mind/brain has no way physically to do it--maybe with drugs or surgery--extreme, I know, but this also goes for chronic depression, mania, and SO MANY other type of conditions.

/Wow, that covered a lot of ground--heavily edited in a few spots for better clarification or expansion of a notion that needed some meat to be understood correctly. Tom Cruise is a moron who may be like what I said in the last point (unfortunately). I hope this is more informative than derisive as some points will be no matter what.

WARNING: Meant to be long and informative.

Happy to be up-vote 100. Cheers to Matt and everyone involved with the Atheist Experience for what they're trying to accomplish.

KnivesOut - profane rants accomplish nothing in these kinds of discussions. Perhaps your passions run high and you feel your beliefs are 'under assault' merely because I presented a different perspective. But is not the argument of these atheists a condemnation of such broad-brushed insult/attack screeds? Is not their initial point, "Hey - why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?" I happen to agree with that.

So then, is it not innately hypocritical to claim immunity from such attacks but to then turn around and attack someone because they believe something you don't? If you agree with that message, then should you not practice it? Isn't that what atheists are always complaining about in regards to religious followers - that they don't practice what they preach? Why should we take any atheist seriously if they complain about Christians telling him he's 'going to hell', but then calls Christians a bunch of monsters?

It is the presentation of these intolerant positions that bugs me on both sides. Looking at the religious world, there is clearly a continuum of people who range from the truly admirable to the wicked scoundrel. That isn't God's fault. Likewise, in the "atheist world" there are people who are truly admirable and people who are wicked scoundrels. That isn't the Universe's fault. People are people, and in any population you are going to have both ends of the spectrum represented by respectively sized proportions.

It intellectually dishonest to get all "FOX News" or "MSNBC" and use the extremes to condemn the whole. There's some great things about religious faith. They do a lot of good things, and help a lot of people. And no - not all religious help "holds your sandwich hostage"; much of it is completely gratis. To throw the baby out with the bath water does not encourage people to take the atheist position seriously any more so than a Christian who says they love their neighbor while telling them they're going to hell. Both stand equally guilty in my view of rank hypocrisy.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or maybe God does care about those smart enough to rely on evidence, and he uses the double blind placebo? Like I said, follow my word, and be damned. Be smart enough to please me, and be saved. Wouldn't that be some shit? And for those who say, "Oh, but that would make God a liar!" Yeah, so fucking what? I mean, why should "god" tell the truth when truth/lie is a mere means to an end?
Oh, and "Love," and "Truth," is no more a virtue than faith...


Then me as an Atheist, I'm safe. However, if I ever arrived in a "heaven" like that, I will never be happy knowing that others are lost or being punished FOREVER while I enjoy my "heaven". This is the same for ANY God or "heaven":

I would tell that God this, "Go fuck yourself!".

But, anyway...

I will never be happy knowing that others are lost or being punished FOREVER while I enjoy my "heaven". This is the same for ANY God or "heaven". I would tell that God this, "Go **** yourself".

Many people are using archaic concepts to discuss heaven & hell that are so various in use among different sects that it is almost futile to even try seriously talking about them. Some pick an extreme and blast ‘religion’ for saying an unprincipled wastrel who ‘converts’ is given eternal bliss, while a decent man who never heard of God is condemned to everlasting torment. Any fair-minded person would balk at such a stilted portrayal of judgment.

I’d suggest that condemnation of “religion” (or specifically Judeo-Christianity) based on these flawed positions is not fair or accurate. People are talking about God’s justice literally with pitchfork devils and halo angels as their framework. Most serious-minded persons talk about heaven & hell more properly in terms of the peace that comes with being aligned with God or the failed potential that comes with distance from God.

Put yourself in God’s shoes and say you are trying to maintain a realm of harmony and understanding. Someone comes along who stridently disagrees with how you’re doing things to the point where they basically are in open rebellion. In such a circumstance, would it not be reasonable to offer them a place where they could be happier since they are unhappy with things as they are? Would not such a place by necessity involve some degree of separation?

Ultimately, a person chooses their own degree of judgment based on their alignment with God. Both heaven (alignment with God) and hell (distance from God) are places where a person can reach the highest degree of happiness they can. Obviously (from a religious viewpoint) a person aligned with God has a much higher capacity for increasing happiness. Likewise, a person not aligned with God would only drift further and further away. On an eternal timescale, one side offers an ever-increasing degree of limitless happiness while the other offers only the literal damnation of halted progress.

I’m not saying all religions ascribe to this exact explanation, but it is a far more accurate discussion of the concept of ‘heaven and hell’ than what was offered by either the goombah who called into the radio show, or the caricature so lambasted by the hosts.

KnivesOut? Since KnivesOut only had one word (promote) in his comment, I suppose you mean someone else, and since I used the dreaded f-word once in my comment, is my comment the "profane rant" to which you refer? Oh well... I would perhaps agree that it was snarky and in a mocking and sarcastic tone, and perhaps not very polite, but "Profane rant"? Hardly.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood the "why do you want us to burn in hell" question that the hosts in the video asked Mark, they werent complaining that he disagreed with them or that he didn't like their opinions, they are atheists, thats what you would expect from any believer. What they did was to ask an honest question: WHY? it wasnt a pleading whimpering "ooh please dont attack our precious,frail belief/disbelief!" Quite the contrary, they wanted him to elaborate and explain why.

Like them, I am not frightened or threatened in any way by the expression of beliefs contrary to my own, in fact I welcome it. But If I found them to be faulty in their reasoning. Like your rather arrogant claim that Mark, surely a dedicated Christian if there ever was one, had no idea what "true faith" was, and that you could tell us. If its all faith anyway, how is Mark, or anyone else supposed to know the difference? Its all based on arbitrary interpretations of mistranslated text, and a good chunk of wishful thinking. Your true faith is probably blasphemy to mark, who knows?

And deciding which one of you is right , is like using a third chicken to see which of the two first were kicking in the right direction.


Lastly, Please dont make the false comparison suggesting MSNBC is the "FOX news of the left". Its not. Its biased as hell, but its nothing like fox. It doesnt pretend to be balanced, it doesnt systematically lie and distort and its hosts are not insane conspiracy nuts. Compared to FOX, MSNBC is actually fair and balanced.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

KnivesOut - profane rants accomplish nothing in these kinds of discussions. Perhaps your passions run high and you feel your beliefs are 'under assault' merely because I presented a different perspective. But is not the argument of these atheists a condemnation of such broad-brushed insult/attack screeds? Is not their initial point, "Hey - why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?" I happen to agree with that.
So then, is it not innately hypocritical to claim immunity from such attacks but to then turn around and attack someone because they believe something you don't? If you agree with that message, then should you not practice it? Isn't that what atheists are always complaining about in regards to religious followers - that they don't practice what they preach? Why should we take any atheist seriously if they complain about Christians telling him he's 'going to hell', but then calls Christians a bunch of monsters?
It is the presentation of these intolerant positions that bugs me on both sides. Looking at the religious world, there is clearly a continuum of people who range from the truly admirable to the wicked scoundrel. That isn't God's fault. Likewise, in the "atheist world" there are people who are truly admirable and people who are wicked scoundrels. That isn't the Universe's fault. People are people, and in any population you are going to have both ends of the spectrum represented by respectively sized proportions.
It intellectually dishonest to get all "FOX News" or "MSNBC" and use the extremes to condemn the whole. There's some great things about religious faith. They do a lot of good things, and help a lot of people. And no - not all religious help "holds your sandwich hostage"; much of it is completely gratis. To throw the baby out with the bath water does not encourage people to take the atheist position seriously any more so than a Christian who says they love their neighbor while telling them they're going to hell. Both stand equally guilty in my view of rank hypocrisy.

KnivesOut?

Ah - my mistake. It was a reference to your comment, BRP.

What they did was to ask an honest question: WHY? it wasnt a pleading whimpering "ooh please dont attack our precious,frail belief/disbelief!" Quite the contrary, they wanted him to elaborate and explain why.

No - I understood quite clearly what they were saying. Their central argument was that it is wrong to impute the harshest condemnation possible on a person when you know next to nothing about them. In other words - exactly what I said... "why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?"

Like your rather arrogant claim that Mark, surely a dedicated Christian if there ever was one, had no idea what "true faith" was, and that you could tell us.

Christ's message in the New Testament is not complicated - and it is wholly void of instances where he marched up to someone he didn't know and told them they were eternally condemned. True Christianity (faith) does not involve such things. The guy was out of line, and out of step with true faith. That's a fact.

Its all based on arbitrary interpretations of mistranslated text, and a good chunk of wishful thinking. Your true faith is probably blasphemy to mark, who knows?

Well - I don't (and didn't) presume to say that I had all the answers. I confined my comments about the caller & hosts to the topic at hand. In the end, I can think of no instances where Christ would have done what the caller did. It is far more likely he would have dropped a fantastic parable that encouraged repentance and good deeds in opposition to just relexively following dogma. In fact the parable of the watchtower comes to mind.

Lastly, Please dont make the false comparison suggesting MSNBC is the "FOX news of the left". Its not. Its biased as hell, but its nothing like fox. It doesnt pretend to be balanced, it doesnt systematically lie and distort and its hosts are not insane conspiracy nuts. Compared to FOX, MSNBC is actually fair and balanced.

Totally disagree. MSNBC & Fox are peas in a pod, just on opposite sides of the pod. MSNBC doesn't lie & distort and it's hosts aren't insane? No offense, but only a person who had been braised for decades in the bile of liberal bias could possibly think that.

Their central argument was that it is wrong to impute the harshest condemnation possible on a person when you know next to nothing about them. In other words - exactly what I said...


Actually, no, I dont think that was their point at all, They are saying its wrong because he does he knows next to nothing about WHY he believes what he believes. Let me put it this way: If we are to take the bible to be true, then obviously things are not looking up for us atheists, right? Now, blabbering about hellfire and so on might not be the most productive, and certainly not the nicest thing you can do to us, and its probably not what Jesus would have done, fine. We agree so far. But then there is Mark: Heres my guesses as to some of the stuff he believes:

He believes Jesus is the son of God
He believes Jesus died for all our sins
He believes we must repent to Jesus/God
He believes Jesus will forgive you if you do.
He Believes Jesus will come back to judge the living and the dead
He believes, that if you dont believe in Jesus or god, and blaspheme and sin and whatever, you will not get into heaven

Now, if Mark really, really believes all this (after all, it is the central theme of Christianity) Then I completely understand Mark if he wants to warn atheists about the perils they face if they keep up their disbelief, After all why shouldnt he? if the bible really IS true, I really hope someone warns me in time, seriously! The way it looks now is that I'm surfing the lake of fire before even the white tunnel appears.

But you see the problem is, there isnt a shred of evidence to suggest any of that nonsense is true, I might as well bet all my money(as if i had any) on Kim Jong Il to win the PGA Tour, after all, according to North Korean sources ( a country way ahead of the bronze age middle east, by the way) The fat little bastard had no less than 5 hole-in-ones in his first round of golf.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Totally disagree. MSNBC & Fox are peas in a pod, just on opposite sides of the pod. MSNBC doesn't lie & distort and it's hosts aren't insane? No offense, but only a person who had been braised for decades in the bile of liberal bias could possibly think that.


I dont live in the US, but from my perspective I have watched rightwing broadcasting in the US descend into utterly paranoid absurd nonsense the last 10 or so years, largely because of FOX. From my perspective, and the rest of the world,, FOX isnt even rightwing, its just insane, a network that has basically constructed its own reality that it operates within, in this pseudo-reality Reagan is still the king, False, Christian versions of the Founding Fathers were infallible gods who freed the slaves and Glenn Beck is considered sane.

The same kind of crazyness is found in places like Italy, where Berlusconi owns most of the media. Luckily there are always alternatives in the US, but because FOX have been so successful in setting up the right wing pseudo-reality far into crazy town, the balance point between left and right is now far off to the right. Everything becomes "socialist" in comparison, MSNBC, BBC, AlJazeera,CNN, compared to Fox, these are basically the red army propaganda channel compared to FOX

So which worldview do you think is closer to the truth: One where FOX is plain nuts, or one where the rest of the world are all brainwashed liberal-socialist-marxist-communist-nazi sympathizers?

Think about it.

Take Obama as an example: Now talk to ANY proffesional political analyst in the WORLD, and they would all say that Obama is a Center-leaning Democrat, more to the right than, say JFK or Jimmy Carter, for instance. But because FOX and others has, ever since Obamas campaign started, and perhaps even a bit before that, they have distorted, lied and insinuated systematically for close to 3 years now, and now you'd do extremely well to convince even one person at a tea-party rally that he isnt a reincarnation of Stalin. Just forget about even trying to place him on the political spectrum in america, Fox and friends have made him into a socialist maniac. A SANE analisys of Obama would perhaps land him as a right-center leaning democrat.. Now what does this tell you about how fucked up FOX really is?

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.

As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.

So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then, secondly, like I said, it finds "most of the media" has a "leftist bias" thats because FOX has, as I said, moved the standard on the right into crazyville. This makes anyone left of Reagan basically into a "leftist." Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange. I'm not American, I'm Norwegian, and frankly American left or right politics mean very little to me, nor, I think, to the rest of the world. To me what matters is that American politicians are reality-based and care about other countries and their history as well as their own, that they respect international laws and treaties and that they know about real problems like global warming and so on.

Which reminds me,the fact that I mention global warming probably proves to you that I'm a "leftist" but in the rest of the world GW is not a partisan issue: It's just a scientific fact. And that example alone is enough to show how screwed up the American right has become. Not only are they denying undeniable scientific fact, but they've managed to make it a partisan issue. Basically they've managed to get half the country to ignore the available data on the changing climate, as well as a few other things, like evolution.

We don't really have partisan lines like that, sure we have fiscal conservatives and progressives, left and right and so on, but we dont have the same degree of reality denial. (Alas, I fear it might be on its way to some of the populistic parties, inspired by the success in the US) Anyway we have discussions and debates and disagree on important principles and so on. But no side lies and distorts systematically, no side is fundamentally antiscientific, and no side is full of religious nuts.. Oh well, I guess what I'm saying is that theres nothing wrong about being right wing, but theres something seriously wrong with the rightwingers.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.
As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.
So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then

Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.

Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.

I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.

We don't really have partisan lines like that

No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:

Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

You must be fun at parties.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then
Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.
http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-polit
icized
So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.
Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.
There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.
Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.
I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.
We don't really have partisan lines like that
No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:
Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.
What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.


Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative. This isnt about right or left "perspectives" but about basic journalistic integrity, and basic respect for the truth. We see it again and again, FOX spews out some insinuating shit, and then gets debunked by other networks, but instead of acknowldging their mistakes and take steps to correct them, they keep up their lies.

FOX , for example, started the birther movement, the "Obama is a muslim" movement, and the tea party(based on the fictional idea that the original tea-party opposed taxes. They didnt, they opposed taxes to a foreign country). In addition, they keep fuelling lies about global warming ie: "climategate" consisting of a few misunderstood emails between scientists. This isnt journalism, this isnt "opposing views" this is dishonesty. and if it happened once or twice, you could blame sloppiness or mistakes, or maybe a biased reporter or two, but with FOX it is symptomatic and systematic.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts, they actually try to put things in its proper contexts and strive for honesty.

Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative.

This kind of opinion can only be aimed at the FOX commentary side of the equation such as Beck, Hannity, et al. It does not apply to the "news" side. Most cable news programs have a distinct division between "News" (updates of current events) and "Commentary" (talking head opinion programs). I have seen nothing in FOX News' "news" that in any way is described by your litany of grievances. The only stuff that fits your description is the "commentary" side.

But talking about OPINION programs as "dishonesty, distortion, denial, undercutting reality", belies the nature of what you are implying. You are implying their NEWS lies, distorts, denies - when in reality you are grumping at COMMENTARY that (based on your bias) you interpret as lies, distorts, and denies. Must you not freely acknowledge that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, USA Today, and innumerable other news outlets are equal violators in that regard? How is the foaming commentary of Chris Matthews any better than Sean Hannity? How are the inane distortions and exaggerations of Beck any different than Maddow's?

FOX didn't start the birther movement. That started because Obama first refused to release his birth certificate, and then Hawaii refused to release it, and then they released a digitized copy, and finally released a document that does not necessarily rule out the possibility of being foreign born. FOX News didn't do all that. And the whole East Anglia corruption scandal is not FOX News' fault. Again, I only see this as you complaining that an critical voice is applying some strict standards of accountability to an organization that your personal bias prefers being given a free pass to lie. It isn't dishonesty - it is a rare application of journalistic standars to an otherwise unaccountable group caught red-handed cooking their books.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts

Bullcrap. Madddow & Olbermann prove they are only interested in left-leaning slant every time they open their mouths and flap their yaps. Someone with a right-leaning slant will say the exact thing about Beck or Hannity and you cannot argue the point because they are using your same logic. They can say that Beck 'cares about facts' too - as long as they reinforce his position. Maddow cares about facts - if they make her opinions look good. Neither of them tell the whole story, and both of them deliberately hide facts that contradict their narratives.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheist, religion, christianity, faith, hell, evidence, reason' to 'atheist experience, religion, christianity, faith, hell, evidence, reason' - edited by xxovercastxx