Rich, please remind me again why I don't have television at home. Really, I am supposed to pay how much money for shit like this? I don't think so. Especially when I can get the clip in question on youtube.

Really, I fail to see how it even matters that she can claim to see some value in religion. Sure, there are studies that show that position X has some merit. However, the idea that “studies show” is the refuge of scoundrels and liars.

Anyone who is morally and intellectually bankrupt can construct a “study” the proves any point that one wishes to make. However, pointing out that a study shows some point fails to deal with whether the study was subject to critical peer review.

A case in point could be the so called French paradox. People in France eat like pigs and have hardly any heart disease. So much effort is being directed to finding the chemical in red wine that is the key. If that substance can be found, it will be a medical magic bullet.

The problem here is that we already know what the chemical is. The French also drink like fishes. It is all about the booze. Ethanol destroys bad cholesterol. Such is the reason why the medical community calls the bible belt “stroke alley”.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a ploy.

HOWEVER, there are people who call themselves atheists merely as a way to distance themselves from right wing Christianity but still believe something is out there. They should be calling themselves agnostic theists and not atheists.

I have a co-worker whose boyfriend called himself an atheist, but when I dug deeper by asking him questions he really was not. He didn't buy the magic fantastic claims of the bible, but did think along the lines of a Jeffersonian deism of "something" starting all this and then stepping aside.

People who make this mistake are using the word to distance themselves from what they see as the bigoted bullying of theism, but don't understand that the word "atheist" includes all gods even generic concepts with no label.

I also worry about laymen atheists who dont buy any god, even a generic concept, but don't do anything to educate themselves as to what constitutes a good crap detector. You can know how to start a car, but you still need to learn to drive it. I worry about the atheist who doesn't read Dawkins, or the bible and merely says "it is bullshit". I call them easy pickings for theists, even if they are atheists.

Certainly there are no "true atheists" just like there are no "true Christians. But educating yourself as to why you hold your position is important.

Christopher and Salman aren't needed for that. Let me do the honors.

Dude...As the host of an internet Tv talkshow, I am totally relying on people like you to make my living...

Is S.E. Cupp her bra size?

We cant say she isn't an atheist. There really are atheists who vote republican but don't believe in a god. There are gay republicans too.

I will say this. She does not represent the views of all atheists. I think she is easy pickings for the slick marketing of an apologist. I don't think she has a very deep knowledge of theology or what goes into the skepticism or what constitutes good use of logic.

It is possible, even for those on the right who do believe, to be empathetic and politically correct. I have known many of Falwell students who were far right, but were embarrassed by Falwell's media antics and bigotry.

Humans are not monochromatic by virtue of label. Her being an atheist only means she holds no belief in a god or gods. She is still a human being capable of bad logic. It would not surprise me that she is getting paid to pretend to not believe. But it wouldn't surprise me that she really does not believe in a god, but doesn't like believers being picked on.

Listening to her does make me want to puke as well, but that doesn't mean she isn't an atheist. I would simply say, if she is, she would be simply our label's version of a layman who has no business jumping into intellectual battles.

I have met plenty of atheists who say, "I don't believe" and that is as deep as they get. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to educated, it merely means you don't hold a belief in a god.

She comes across as either a fake paid by fox, or an atheist who is the right's version of politically correct with no deep intellectual argument.

The believers reading this SHOULD learn if anything, sharing a label doesn't mean those within a label agree on all things all the time.

I find it disturbing that anyone thinks that there is virtue in merely holding a position based on passion. She misses the point that one can be passionate AND WRONG. That is not something we should want in people in positions of power, OF ANY LABEL.

It is blind faith and willful credulity that leads to mistakes. Mistake happen and we all make them. But without testing and kicking the tires and oversight and questioning we magnify the chances that we will make MORE mistakes and make the mistakes WORSE.

And she is employing "militant atheist" which has been also used by believers on the left. That is not a right, vs left, tactic. It is a tactic believers use ignorantly to try to demonize someone who is merely challenging set beliefs and set norms. To say the left never says "militant atheist" is false. I have even heard atheist use the term outside this woman.

Where it is false is that we never hear of atheists blowing things up or threatening cartoonists.

I warn atheists not to fall into the same trap of "true this" or "true that" that theists fall for. I can only say that her logic and intent is suspect and that Faux is merely using marketing tactics to keep their viewers.

sotto lol...

What she said about George Bush doesn't make any sense. She's comforted by the fact that he's following a higher power? What the hell?!? She doesn't believe in God, so George Bush can't be following a higher power. He can only have the delusion of following a higher power, but ultimately, he has to be following his own opinions.