CNN says Atheists should "shut up"

[Americancommi]

Cnn slams Atheists with a biassed pannel which claims that America is a "Christian Nation" and Atheists should "shut up." On this pannel cnn didn't get a single Atheist or even someone representing the Atheist viewpoint. here is a link to the video http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...62-b1b8d262d98e (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=152444327&blogID=226256376&MyToken=2fec6ddb-0907-4625-be62-b1b8d262d98e)
We cannot allow this hypocrisy to go unchecked. Even if you are not an Atheist think about if a pannel of Christians and Muslims said that Jews should just shut up because they are a minority. So much for balanced news and journalistic integrity.

[Cyanide Suicide]

Sounds like something Fox News would do.

But, yeah, that's lame that they say something like that without anyone there to defend Atheism.

[wtfm8lol]

dawkins or harris should've been on there.

[Fawkes]

Or Darwin.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:52 pm
Or Darwin.
I prefer wtfm8lol's suggestions because they're alive.

Anyway:

Newsflash, this just in:
Atheists tell CNN to fuck off.
That is all.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:23 pm
Cnn slams Atheists with a biassed pannel which claims that America is a "Christian Nation" and Atheists should "shut up." On this pannel cnn didn't get a single Atheist or even someone representing the Atheist viewpoint. here is a link to the video http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...62-b1b8d262d98e (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=152444327&blogID=226256376&MyToken=2fec6ddb-0907-4625-be62-b1b8d262d98e)
We cannot allow this hypocrisy to go unchecked. Even if you are not an Atheist think about if a pannel of Christians and Muslims said that Jews should just shut up because they are a minority. So much for balanced news and journalistic integrity.
Poll: How many of us really care what wankers on CNN say?

[bcbm]

Let's go burn some churches, that will really rile 'em up. Ha. Idiots.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 06, 2007 11:17 pm
Let's go burn some churches, that will really rile 'em up. Ha. Idiots.
i'm game

[Fawkes]

Poll: How many of us really care what wankers on CNN say?
I don't, but many people in America do.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:25 pm

Poll: How many of us really care what wankers on CNN say?
I don't, but many people in America do.
Excellent point. I have a feeling that after watching that, lots of Christians developed a hatred for atheists and the ones that already hated atheists feel more secure in it.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 06, 2007 06:17 pm
Let's go burn some churches, that will really rile 'em up. Ha. Idiots.
Nah, they'd just take revenge on athiests by burning libraries, universities, and laboratories.

[Publius]

Cnn slams Atheists with a biassed pannel which claims that America is a "Christian Nation" and Atheists should "shut up." On this pannel cnn didn't get a single Atheist or even someone representing the Atheist viewpoint. here is a link to the video http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...62-b1b8d262d98e (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=152444327&blogID=226256376&MyToken=2fec6ddb-0907-4625-be62-b1b8d262d98e)
We cannot allow this hypocrisy to go unchecked. Even if you are not an Atheist think about if a pannel of Christians and Muslims said that Jews should just shut up because they are a minority. So much for balanced news and journalistic integrity.

Well, at least the panel had 'diversity', because we knew diversity is based on your skin color and genitalia, not on having heterodox or otherwise unique opinions.

It's bad when Stephen A. Smith, who couldn't hold down a show on ESPN, is, far and away, the smartest person on the panel.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by rev-stoic+February 06, 2007 05:31 pm--> (rev-stoic @ February 06, 2007 05:31 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 06, 2007 06:17 pm
Let's go burn some churches, that will really rile 'em up. Ha. Idiots.
Nah, they'd just take revenge on athiests by burning libraries, universities, and laboratories. [/b]
:lol: More likely they'll just whine in the papers and TV about "Satanist conspiracies!" and all sorts of hiliarious overreaction and hysteria will ensue.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by rev-stoic+February 06, 2007 06:31 pm--> (rev-stoic @ February 06, 2007 06:31 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 06, 2007 06:17 pm
Let's go burn some churches, that will really rile 'em up. Ha. Idiots.
Nah, they'd just take revenge on athiests by burning libraries, universities, and laboratories. [/b]
Hahaha.

[Guerrilla22]

This is the same channel that gives Lou Dobbs a nightly segment to have a racistt rant about how "illegals" are ruining the country, as Jazzrat would say, CNN can **** off!

[Fawkes]

Speaking of that, I was just watching Lou Dobbs and he was, surprisingly, bashing illegals even more.

[bezdomni]

CNN should shut up.

[Cryotank Screams]

This country was founded by deists not christians, and Benjamin Franklin was a member of the hellfire club, which practiced drinking, blasphamy, and debauchery, and was widely known for his affaris with various women, and said her learned french on the bed of his french mistresses, yea real christian, <_< .

I also agree with SovietPants.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

the irony of that show is it really proves what the atheists are saying.

[Janus]

I didn&#39;t really expect much out of CNN but I wasn&#39;t aware that they had crap religious discussions in addition to their shitty reporting. Oh well, it&#39;s not like the mainstream media ever makes an attempt to be unbiased, they usually just ignore controversial issues if they don&#39;t confront it.

[Fawkes]

Speaking of crap religious discussions, does anyone else occasionally watch the 700 Club just for the amusement it gives?

[bretty]

Thats disgusting. This is why I don&#39;t watch television.

At least the one guy was advocating some sort of freedom of belief but the two women were incredibly obnoxious and they&#39;re points made no sense.

On another note, do you really think there is only 3 million atheists in the states?

[wtfm8lol]

On another note, do you really think there is only 3 million atheists in the states?

maybe it&#39;s just that i only associate with smart people or that i&#39;m from the north, but many, if not most, of my friends are atheists.

[Janus]

The 700 Club, as well as Pat Robertson, have been the target of large controversies. One such controversy is that the 700 Club often advertises that people who view the 700 Club have been healed in a physical or spiritual manner, or have profited economically. Claims include people who have suffered from migraines for years, people with near malaria symptoms, and general ailments and serious medical issues. Letters from people who have claimed to have been cured, through what they believe to be a miracle, are often read on the program. These claims are often cited to be unlikely, asserting that by watching the 700 Club on television, one might have a miracle and/or be cured of a serious medical issue requiring the use of modern medicine. In 2003 Robertson underwent surgery to remove his cancerous prostate gland. Some have mocked his decision to use human medicine and science as hypocritical to his rhetoric of faith healing.[5]

Another controversy includes numerous claims made by Pat Robertson on the show. In one such instance, he advertised and endorsed an energy drink that he claimed gave him strength and vitality enough to leg press 2000 lbs. (909.09 kg) [6] This assertion is controversial, as the Florida State University record for leg press, for example, is 1335 lbs. (618.82 kg), and the person who broke the record (later an NFL player and Navy SEAL) burst the blood vessels in his eyes in his attempt. In addition, no current piece of exercise equipment could support 2,000 lbs. for Robertson to press. [7] The energy drink was soon removed due to this controversy.
Just stumbled across this. I&#39;d actually watch it if Robertson was gonna attempt that on live television.

[bcbm]

"This assertion is controversial?&#33;?&#33;" Uh, no, that is a pretty straight forward example of what is commonly called "bullshit."

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:32 am

On another note, do you really think there is only 3 million atheists in the states?

maybe it&#39;s just that i only associate with smart people or that i&#39;m from the north, but many, if not most, of my friends are atheists.
Alot of my friends are atheists too but I&#39;m canadian.

[Fawkes]

HAHA, what fucking bullshit about that leg press thing.

[Sir_No_Sir]

That&#39;s disgusting

They obviously have no clue on the first amendment. Maybe someone needs to *****slap them with the establishment clause?

[cenv]

Hmm... I&#39;m not quite sure what the big deal with this CNN thing is. CNN is part of the bourgeois media, and as such, they will spread bourgeois ideas. Pretty simple. No reason getting worked up about a single incident, because whether we like it or not, CNN is spreading bourgeois bullshit every day.

[Anton]

well, not that i really care for what CNN says, but here&#39;s my official statement to CNN:

"FUCK OFF"

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by patton+February 07, 2007 03:13 pm--> (patton @ February 07, 2007 03:13 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 01:32 am

On another note, do you really think there is only 3 million atheists in the states?

maybe it&#39;s just that i only associate with smart people or that i&#39;m from the north, but many, if not most, of my friends are atheists.
I have a lot of atheists friends to that 3 million figure has to be bullshit. ;) [/b]
Me too. The vast majority of my peers are either atheist or agnostic. If you ask them what religion they are, if they don&#39;t say "none" they will tell you the religion of their family, but when pressed they will admit that they don&#39;t really hold a positive belief in a deity.

The people I know who actively practice a religion and truly believe its tenets are typically older than 30 or 40 years old. I bet things are different in other parts of the country, especially the Deep South, but at least up here the youth is overwhelmingly non-religious.

[encephalon]

Evidently you people have never been out in the real world--because if you had been, you&#39;d quickly find that self-proclaimed atheists are a rarity, only slightly more common than self-proclaimed communists in the states.

Still, if you divide it evenly amongst the states (which obviously you shouldn&#39;t, but this is for the sake of clarity): that&#39;s 60,000 in every state. In ohio, which is roughly 220 miles by 220 miles (44,824 miles sq), you&#39;d have an atheist every 3/4 of a mile at an even population density. That really isn&#39;t too bad, considering the reactionary nature of most of the US population.

[RNK]

I also find it hard to believe. Of all the people that I know well enough to be able to accurately define their religion, only one is infact religious. The rest are either atheist, agnostic, or of the "well, my family is xxx religion, but I&#39;ll be damned if I&#39;ve been to a church in the past 20 years or said a prayer anytime other than when asking God to make my hangover less painful".

More than likely their questionnaire didn&#39;t list "agnostic" as an option or provide ample explanation. The media tends to do that to get favourable results from polls.

[encephalon]

Given the relatively youthful composition of this board--both OI and CC and everything in-between--it doesn&#39;t surprise me that many of you are surprised by these numbers.

Give it a few years, wait until nigh all of your acquaintences have children and lose family member, and then see if it surprises you. When people start having more to lose, that&#39;s when they start believing wholly absurd things.

While my immediate friends aren&#39;t religious, most people that I&#39;ve met at least have a general religious disposition, practicing or not. You guys seriously need to consider the fact that yourselves and the people you flock with probably aren&#39;t representative of the majority.

[Wozza]

its disgusting. plain and simple. I believe the bill of rights clearly states that each person can have freedom of religion...so what if they choose to have no religion?

[Question everything]

It also guarentees freedom of speech... *cough*Riot control *cough* (among other things)

[Ol' Dirty]

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If they don&#39;t like atheism, they have every right to talk about it. I still have the right, though, to my personal religious beliefs.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:27 pm
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If they don&#39;t like atheism, they have every right to talk about it. I still have the right, though, to my personal religious beliefs.
no it doesn&#39;t, dipshit. it doesn&#39;t mean that any more than freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, which you sure as fuck don&#39;t have unless you don&#39;t leave your house and don&#39;t turn your tv on.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+February 10, 2007 12:51 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ February 10, 2007 12:51 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 05:27 pm
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If they don&#39;t like atheism, they have every right to talk about it. I still have the right, though, to my personal religious beliefs.
no it doesn&#39;t, dipshit. it doesn&#39;t mean that any more than freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, which you sure as fuck don&#39;t have unless you don&#39;t leave your house and don&#39;t turn your tv on. [/b]
Calm down.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+February 10, 2007 05:51 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ February 10, 2007 05:51 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 05:27 pm
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If they don&#39;t like atheism, they have every right to talk about it. I still have the right, though, to my personal religious beliefs.
no it doesn&#39;t, dipshit. it doesn&#39;t mean that any more than freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, which you sure as fuck don&#39;t have unless you don&#39;t leave your house and don&#39;t turn your tv on. [/b]
You realise that people are free not to leave their house or turn their tv on in most countries, ja?

[wtfm8lol]

You realise that people are free not to leave their house or turn their tv on in most countries, ja?

obviously, but the point is that if you go out in public, you don&#39;t have the right to not hear certain things, whether those things are religious or not. this is, of course, disregarding the assholes at the fcc.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:44 pm

You realise that people are free not to leave their house or turn their tv on in most countries, ja?

i assumed Muigwithania was referring to the statement in the TV segment, which only regarded United States law.
Then don&#39;t assume.

[ichneumon]

Or Darwin.

since when was Darwin an atheist?


at the time of writing the Origin of Species he remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause.

In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did "not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation", but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".

-Wikipedia

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 06, 2007 09:44 pm
This country was founded by deists not christians, and Benjamin Franklin was a member of the hellfire club, which practiced drinking, blasphamy, and debauchery, and was widely known for his affaris with various women, and said her learned french on the bed of his french mistresses, yea real christian, <_< .

I also agree with SovietPants.

I think it&#39;s of no consequence to the revolutionary left what these bourgeois politicians practiced or failed to practice. Nor does it matter on what basis your country was founded. Enough idolization of these racists and misogynists and their totally fallacious liberalism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 10, 2007 03:10 pm--> (Jazzratt @ February 10, 2007 03:10 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:51 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 05:27 pm
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If they don&#39;t like atheism, they have every right to talk about it. I still have the right, though, to my personal religious beliefs.
no it doesn&#39;t, dipshit. it doesn&#39;t mean that any more than freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, which you sure as fuck don&#39;t have unless you don&#39;t leave your house and don&#39;t turn your tv on.
You realise that people are free not to leave their house or turn their tv on in most countries, ja? [/b]
What the hell are you taking about?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:27 pm
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If they don&#39;t like atheism, they have every right to talk about it. I still have the right, though, to my personal religious beliefs.
Please defend this concept, "freedom of religion".

[The Anarchist Prince]

Exactly why I never watch news on TV. The internet provides, luckily.

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:12 pm

Or Darwin.

since when was Darwin an atheist?


at the time of writing the Origin of Species he remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause.

In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did "not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation", but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".

-Wikipedia
His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.[117] He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.[118] When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."- wikipedia

[dogwoodlover]

I have a shitload of fundamentalist Christian friends who rant on about how "secular progressives" are waging "a war against Christmas" and how our university have been infiltrated by communists or whatever other reactionary bullshit they can conjure up.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:11 am
Speaking of crap religious discussions, does anyone else occasionally watch the 700 Club just for the amusement it gives?
LMAO&#33; i do that sometimes I can&#39;t keep a straight face.. specially when their "TERRORIST EXPERT" gives Pat Robertson that "scoop on islam terror plots&#33;" :lol: :rolleyes:

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+February 10, 2007 03:36 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ February 10, 2007 03:36 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 02:27 pm
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If they don&#39;t like atheism, they have every right to talk about it. I still have the right, though, to my personal religious beliefs.
Please defend this concept, "freedom of religion". [/b]
I probably define it differently than you, so I can only defend what I think makes the most sense.

Freedom of religion, in my view, is the right to hold any religious belief you wish, be it christianity, islam, agnosticism, or whatever.

How do you define it?

[Question everything]

ahhh... can&#39;t you guys just job it they even did an exposer showing how hard it is to be an atheist in america :wub: they&#39;re evil with a social concious :lol: ;) , but seriously I hate CNN, I&#39;m not an atheist, but I personally think that CNN is the worst thing on TV.

[freakazoid]

Stupid CNN. grrr

[Lenin's Law]

Ugh, I just watched the show, both parts. It was pathetic. The man (Stephen A. Smith) was decent, but the fact that they had NO one speaking for the atheists or even agnostics tells you immediately the bias nature of the program.

Of course this is not surprising; it follows that like their liberal friends in the Democratic Party, CNN is also aiming to get a slice of the fundamentalist Christian base in the US; why leave it just for the Republicans and Fox?

[Question everything]

... they did have a short feature on descrimination of atheists... but it was pathetic more than anything

[freakazoid]

but the fact that they had NO one speaking for the atheists or even agnostics tells you immediately the bias nature of the program.

They didn&#39;t have anyone there to speak for the athiests? Thats just stupid.

[Orange Juche]

I think they eventually had Richard Dawkins on, because so many people wrote and *****ed about it.

Not saying this to defend them, just noting.