Hannity gets served by an atheist... and his own stupidity

[Randy Carson]

It's a common term. I think you've heard it before.

Randy, why don't you try to put it in your own words?  I know you have trouble thinking for yourself, but I believe in you.  You can do it.

The "New Atheists" include people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris - the Four Horsemen. What made these atheists "new" was not their arguments but their attitude that religion should be reviled. Secular humanist Tom Flynn wrote:

"The triumph of Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens was to take arguments against religion that were long familiar to insiders, brilliantly repackage them, and expose them to millions who would never otherwise pick up an atheist book. Let me say again in bolder type. There is nothing new about the New Atheism. [original emphasis]" (Tom Flynn, "Why I Don't Believe in the New Atheism." http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?sec...flynn_30_3)

[SteelCurtain]

Haha irony.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is (I think) the second time I've seen a vid featuring Mr Hannity on this form.

Question:  Is this sort of bombast-in-place-of-debate the norm on American chat shows?

Boru

[Jackalope]

One might also say that it's a subtle way to drop a hint, Randy.

Ah...

So, I'm not merely claiming that stuff like this goes on...you acknowledge that it does and that you have participated. Hey, it's your forum, and I have agreed to play by your rules.

But thanks for the public confirmation.

I'm claiming that you're mischaracterizing the intent behind it.

[Jackalope]

Randy: in order for a charge of iniquity to be taken seriously, you have to be able to demonstrate intent. Your perception and interpretation of such intent is not evidence of it.

And whatever became of Romans 13:1 - "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God"? Basically, you're supposed to submit to the authority of the Staff even if you feel that we're wrong.

Cthulhu Dreaming just confirmed what I wrote. Do I need more than that?

Stop. Putting. Words. In. My. Mouth.

And I have agreed to your rules and have generally done so since our initial dust-ups (with only one mistake subsequently clarified by and with pocaracas).

That's debatable.

[Regina]

Right, I keep forgetting how an online forum in which people write responses to one another is just like a Fox News interview segment in which people talk over one another [emphasis added] and the clip is edited before being publicly aired.  Give your whining a rest for one day, would you?

It is actually.

Take a look at my "Why Be Good?" thread.

Starting around post 450 or so, four MODERATORS, pocaracas, Stimbo, rexbeccarox and Cthulhu Dreaming start talking about military hardware, rock biters(?) and some movie called "Tank Girl" etc.

It went on for about 50 posts or so.

One might be tempted to say that it was a deliberate attempt to de-rail the thread or filibuster or something.

So, yeah. This forum is not above shouting down anyone who disagrees with the atheist POV.

Well first off many threads on this forum go off on tangents, and far sooner than the 450th post, so it's hardly unique. I'd think by the 450th post that conversation was most likely exhausted and naturally went off another way. Changing the subject after that many posts is hardly a derailment, that was plenty of time for the conversation you wanted to be had. Also nobody was stopping you from bringing it back to the original topic if you really wanted to.

And I say this as nicely as I can, but this is an atheist platform. You're can come on here as a Catholic, that's fine, but you have to understand you are naturally going to come across people who disagree with you here. I'm not going onto a Christian or a Muslim platform to debate, because it's a waste of my time and, even if I don't agree, it's their space.

Christians hold so much space and airtime already in the Western world, sometimes people have no choice but to shout them down just so they can get a word in edge-ways. Let some of these right-wingers have their way, we'd be silenced altogether.

That's why I find the idea that America is a "secular" country laughable. You don't just call yourself "secular", secularism is an action. Until America stops privileging these parasitical right-wing creationist Republicans, it will never be a "secular" country.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He did that at least twice in the OP's video, stating "But I don't want to discuss what you believe, I already know you believe yadda yadda yadda" as a segue to another loaded question leading into an interrupted answer.

Does that ever happen to me in this forum, Parkers?

No, it doesn't, because you're able to compose your answers and post them without being shouted down. Climb down off'n your cross there, Chief.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wow, what a dishonest interview. Definitely am not surprised because of the asshole who was conducting it. He was putting words into his mouth the whole time, and then trying to ask him something else, so he couldn't respond to the dishonest attacks put on Dave.

I'd say Bill Donahue would win by hair over Hannity though Parkers Tan haha. Donahue has actually made my stomach twist on several occasions, watching him in interviews. How he's head of the Catholic League, blows my mind. You'd think they'd want someone that is a little less smug, a little less of an arrogant piece of shit, less of a prick, and is not willing to attack the intelligence of atheists. "Oh yeah, usually, intelligent people believe in god." Although, Hannity did the same thing at the beginning of the interview. I despise them both, but Donahue thinks he's on this pedestal, and that everything in the catholic faith is true, and if you don't believe in it, you are a huge fucking idiot.

I agree that Donohue is a twatwaffle of amazing proportions who fully merits scorn and contempt. We'll simply have to agree that they both are egotistical jackoffs unable to see outside their own fishbowl.

[Randy Carson]

This is (I think) the second time I've seen a vid featuring Mr Hannity on this form.

Question:  Is this sort of bombast-in-place-of-debate the norm on American chat shows?

Boru

Hannity is worse in this regard than others. And that's coming from someone who generally agrees with him.

[Esquilax]

The "New Atheists" include people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris - the Four Horsemen. What made these atheists "new" was not their arguments but their attitude that religion should be reviled. Secular humanist Tom Flynn wrote:

"The triumph of Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens was to take arguments against religion that were long familiar to insiders, brilliantly repackage them, and expose them to millions who would never otherwise pick up an atheist book. Let me say again in bolder type. There is nothing new about the New Atheism. [original emphasis]" (Tom Flynn, "Why I Don't Believe in the New Atheism." http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?sec...flynn_30_3)

We don't need new arguments when your side has utterly failed to address the old ones; and I must remind you that smug insistence that you have is not actually a rebuttal. Your arguments are only convincing if you already accept the conclusions that they were geared to lead to.