Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Discrimination against atheists?


webmdave

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

CNN's recent report on allegations of discrimination against a family of atheists. The members of the "objective" panel in the second segment is interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/02...t-atheists.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just scary isn't it? We can say what we will about CNN not putting an atheist on the panel during the second half, but.... I think the panel proved the point better than anything anyone could have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is this lady, the sister of Ann Coulter? The stupid one? [bold mine]

 

A SIMPLE SEARCH OF MY NAME DOES NOT YIELD THE VIDEO. MY NAME IS NOT IN THE KEY WORDS, SO BASICALLY YOU ARE SAYING I CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO FIND A VIDEO OF ME THAT IS NOT UNDER MY NAME. THANKS FOR CONFIRMING THAT MANY ATHEISTS ARE ALSO IDIOTS, IN ADDITION TO BEING FUTURE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. THE ONLY REASON THESE PEOPLE ARE E-MAILING IS BECAUSE A PROMINENT ATHEIST WEBSITE TOLD THEM TO. THE VIDEO WAS POSTED ON 2/4/07. THAT I'M JUST GETTING THE E-MAILS LAST NIGHT AND TODAY AFTER AN ATHEIST BLOG POSTED ABOUT IT, TELLS ME THE REAL STORY. ESPECIALLY SINCE EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL SAYS THE SAME THING. MONKEYS DOING WHAT THEY'RE TOLD AND PARROTS PARROTING WHAT THEY'RE ASKED TO REPEAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM SMART OR TRUTHFUL.

DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SogekingPWNS

Uhh.. This is meh first post, so if anything is wrong, I apologise in advance. :unsure:

 

Richard Dawkins with Paula Zahn (CNN)

at CNN

 

Richard Dawkins will be the guest with Paula Zahn on Thursday, February 8th 2007 at 8pm EST on CNN.

 

Date: Thursday, February 08, 2007

 

Time: 08:00 PM

 

Stolen Taken from RichardDawkins.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh.. This is meh first post, so if anything is wrong, I apologise in advance. :unsure:

"Apologize"? We never apologize on this site... NEVER! :HaHa:

 

Welcome Soge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just find it pointless to even acknowledge people like that. Especially to go to their place and do so. They will only see what they want to see, and will only show what makes their point, heavy with their own commentary and views. Which is totally their right to do so on their own blog, but I don't have to set myself up by going there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, I think discrimination can happen to anyone regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).

Really? I've been out of the loop for a while Pseudo, I confess...so enlighten me if you will. Are lutherans discriminating against baptists these days? Catholics attacking Presbyterians? Mobs of AoG's going after LDS?

 

Point being, those of us who don't commit to any religion at all are the ones singled out. Truth is, I for one would feel a whole lot better if theists of all stripes would just accept that we don't want to play the game and you all go off and squabble amongst yourselves for the rest of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, I think discrimination can happen to anyone regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).

And this disputes any of the preceding posts how?

 

CNN has a discussion about discrimination against atheists, showing a couple atheist families driven out of town and the panel -- all theists -- say the atheists should shut up? (excepting the sports guy who at least thinks the atheists have a right to voice an opinion.) All this with a background graphic, "Why do atheists inspire such hatred?" Imagine the background graphic, "Why do black people inspire such hatred?" and a panel of a couple of KKKers, and one guy who's not a KKKer, who say only, "black people are fine, I don't agree with them, and they'd be a lot better if the switched away from being black, and I don't like them, but they have the right to exist, and I have no problem with them." In what way is what CNN has done different?

 

And your response... "uh, I think discrimination can happen to anyone..." Yeah, so? Do you have some sort of point to make? I think lots of things, I think 1 + 1 = 2, that Cabernet Sauvignon is a nice red wine, that roast leg of lamb is a nice dinner. All these things I think have one thing in common with your post. They are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pseudoscientist

Piprus, Godless Wonder, since you obviously disagree with each other based on your individual response to my previous statement, I suggest the two of you talk it out with each other. I'm sure you can answer each other's question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piprus, Godless Wonder, since you obviously disagree with each other based on your individual response to my previous statement, I suggest the two of you talk it out with each other. I'm sure you can answer each other's question.

No, you don't get out that easy.

 

Defend yourself or retract.

 

You either have a point, or you don't. If you have one, out with it, and defend it.

 

If you don't, concede.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piprus, Godless Wonder, since you obviously disagree with each other based on your individual response to my previous statement, I suggest the two of you talk it out with each other. I'm sure you can answer each other's question.

I see no disagreement with Godless Wonder. If you do, explain that please. Where I do agree with GW is that you are bound to either defend your original post and defend it, or retract it. You made the point, "uh, I think discrimination can happen to anyone..." so let's hear it. Tell us what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no disagreement with Godless Wonder.
I suspect he means, that to the "other people are discriminated against too" charge, I responded "so what?" while you disputed his charge to some degree.

 

I think we do not disagree, because I merely failed to dispute it, arguing that it was irrelevant.

 

Even if I had agreed with the charge, as presumably he supposes I do, he disagrees with one of us, and agrees with the other (presumably me) by the "logic" of his artlessly attempted dodge.

 

So, pseudoscientist, Piprus and I have worked it out. What say you? You agree with me? You agree with Piprus? Which is it? What's that? You agree with neither of us?

 

Ok, state your point and defend it then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piprus, Godless Wonder, since you obviously disagree with each other based on your individual response to my previous statement, I suggest the two of you talk it out with each other. I'm sure you can answer each other's question.

 

Troll. Trying to divide and conquer. :Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piprus, Godless Wonder, since you obviously disagree with each other based on your individual response to my previous statement, I suggest the two of you talk it out with each other. I'm sure you can answer each other's question.

 

Troll. Trying to divide and conquer. :Wendywhatever:

 

Doing a terrible job of it, too. He really needs to brush up on his Caesar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing a terrible job of it, too. He really needs to brush up on his Caesar.

 

And his Babble. He clearly demonstrates a near-total ignorance of it.

 

Perhaps "pseudoxian" would be a better label? :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How weird. I just started taking a video productions class and we had to make up a fake news broadcast. We shot one in class but it sucked so I checked out a camera and did my own at home for the class.

 

It's not a finished product but here's what I got so far (concerning this issue of course)

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp3xmr9fbDo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.