onegoodmove

"Congratulations, you are a member of perhaps the least popular minority in the country."

I whooped it up after that line. lol. "But is that changing?"

Thanks, Norm, good clip. Joan Konner had some interesting things to say. That thing about Tucker's "correlation" was pretty ridiculous.

Tucker: If you think someone is watching, you are more likely to be a better person than if you don't think anyone is watching

Konner: I think that is a juvenile point of view.

Tucker: OK.

Nice.

Tucker is such a tool. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that he sucks dick.

Tucker is such a tool. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that he licks pussy

She handled him very well, I think. Someone should buy Tucker a copy of Foucault's 'Discipline and Punish' and explain the Panopticon to him, because with or without God, technologies of surveillance and the constructions of modern power relations effectively serve the purpose he desires of "being watched over" by someone or thing more powerful than yourself, ie the state and society, for better or worse. Yiech.

Tucker is a tool. But I should point out that most women you know probably suck dick, and about ten percent of the male population certainly would like to, even if they don't.

Try to think about words like "acceptance" and realize that twisting things like that into insults does nothing but engender hate in an already hate-filled world.

(I can't believe I even have to say that on an obviously liberal-leaning blog in 2007)

They were both awful. To borrow a line from the movie Dodgeball, it was like watching a couple of retards trying to hump a doorknob! From misunderstanding of statistics to outright lies (like the persistant myth that Hitler was an atheist and his regime was atheistic), this was an interview worthy of Bill O'Reilly.

This is why I like Richard Dawkins so much: he never says stupid shit.

I hope that was sarcasm theo, cant hear tone on the internet.But tucker is a cocksucking cunt. So fucking smug, and atheists are the ones who are dogmatic? you gotta be fucking kidding me. And doesnt he realize that if you only have morals because you think somebody is "watching over you" that those aren't real morals at all, you're just trying to gain something by doing good. Real morals come from knowing what is right and wrong yourself, not what you're told is right and wrong. Fuck I hate this guy, then he brings up the old hitler stalin mao, bullshit, well lets hold all christians accountable for every murder that any christian has ever committed. And I'm not even sure hitler was an atheist, couldve been atheist, couldve been some christian just wants to make it look that way. But yeah I liked that lady she made him look like the idiot he is.

Where is Christopher Hitchens when you need him?!

"...the regimes that caused the most bloodshed were all atheist regimes. Mao, Hitler, ...."

Sigh...Hitler was not an atheist. Anyone who actually looks into the matter knows this. As for the Nazi regime, as ultra conservatices they actually endorsed Christianity and despised secular principles. Bill O'Reilly made the exact same claim a while ago. I don't think Hitler's theism is that important, but it boogles my mind how people who make these false claims (and all the bad arguments as well) are allowed to have their own television shows.

Atheists applaud Ellison's views on Cheney, Libby, 9/11

"You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists," he told the group.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9876

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I am so sick of people calling Hitler an atheist.

"Hitler spoke of his Christianity as a motivation for his anti-Semitism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

I can't remember who said this and I am paraphrasing. "When people say you need god to be moral they actually mean you need police lol"

Tucker brought out all the fallacies left right and centre. He has obviously not read any of the atheistic type books that are out there and it seems he is just spouting out the usual stupid rhetoric. As Konner said "juvenile".

Juvenile indeed.

Hey! He decided to wear a tie! (maybe I am a little out of the loop ..)

Now he actually doesn't look so much like the kid from the Problem Child movie now. http://mbottrell.com/Photos/Problem+Child/image/595/problemchild.jpg

HITLER WAS NOT ATHEIST OR AN ATHEIST REGIME!

.... Almost no one tries to claim that the United States is a Christian nation? .... Eh, maybe ... except for just about anyone you ask on the streeet would answer in the affirmative.

Anyways, if you want some more atheistic quotes, I suggest visiting this site.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

ugh....Tucker's view / rationality for the need for a higher being is juvenile at best. Somebody watching? WTF? That's effective...if you have the emotional maturity of a 5 year old...

kiva

I didn't even notice when I watched it originally, but they even misspelled atheism (hence I'm assuming the picture Norm chose). Totally flew past me.

hence I'm assuming the picture Norm chose

Give the young man from Milwaukee the prize.

"You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists," he told the group.

I think Islam is a metanarrative more megalomaniacal and treacherous than Christianity, and "Liberal Islam" is a rather comical magic show, but I voted for Keith because I like him and he's the right man for the job regardless of how he spends 5 minutes, 5 times per day washing his hands and feet.

Oh and Susceptor needs to remind themself to quit using homophobic jokes that aren't in the spirit of irony or downright tawdriness, and theotherone needs to chill the fuck out.

"The country is becoming more secular by every single measure."

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I am so sick of people calling Hitler an atheist. "Hitler spoke of his Christianity as a motivation for his anti-Semitism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

Excellent citation FHJ834D88DD!

The interesting thing about the speech quoted by the Wikipedia article you cited: When Hitler spoke of his twisted Christianity as a rationale for his antisemitism, he used the rationale as a way of winning over other Christians as well.

"Mao, Hitler, Stalin..." Hitler was a Catholic, Stalin was Russian Orthodox and I don't know what Mao was, maybe Atheist. Now why was it when the Cultural Revolution led to the deaths of 20 million is always mentioned but the Taiping Rebellion which led to the downfall of the Manchu dynasty also killed 20 million. The Rebellion was led by a guy who thought he was Christ's brother. Never mentioned by Christians.

However it isn't surprising that as technology advances so does the death count. Technology has nothing to do with Atheism or religion, it just makes it easier to kill people just as it's faster to go from LA to NY now than it was 100 years ago. Tucker is an idiot.

"The country is becoming more secular by every single measure."

... is True.

What's being hinted at is that because Bush is pugnacious, stupid and Christian, that's got the whole nation swept up in emulating him, which is completely hysterical.

Bush simply isn't popular enough nor can he articulate well enough to inspire a nation to become more religious. If anything, he's an athiest's best friend.

There's always this tendency to use short-hand ways to define culture in order to make sense of it all. Like, didn't all school kids start having oral sex because of Clinton? Does anyone think that they were really paying that much attention? Also, on the civilian level, the 60s were still a pretty conservative time, but you wouldn't think so from its popular encapsulations. So much is given shape from the weight of attention to what's controversial at the time and not what's really occupying the energy and time of the average joe.

People may not be automatically switching to atheism in droves, but they are more inclined, more than ever, towards nebulous forms of "personal spirituality" over organized religion, and towards unitarianism. There's more cherry-picking and less dogma on the popular scale for sure. And it's been going on over many decades.

I understand that it's more fun to stomp one's foot down on Tuckers neck, however.

"The country is becoming more secular by every single measure."
... is True.

Right, like more federal money going to religious organizations and more laws passed supporting religious views.

The problem with achieving morals through religion is that you are being moral for the wrong reason: fear. You're afraid of going to hell, so you follow the rules.

Non-believers are morale not out of fear but because they know it's right. It's like the movie A Clockwork Orange. Forcing someone to do good is not really making them a good person.

i thought ms. konner sounded very reasonable- in fact i was surprised to see her on the show. it was only a matter of time before someone used the incredibly ironic title "the atheists' bible" and i suppose it's just as well that it was her.

my problem with tucker stems from being introduced to him for the first time being absolutely DESTROYED by jon stewarts basset hound eyes. i've never been able to think of him as anything other than a schmuck. to be fair, though, his "archbishop" quip at the end, while only mildly funny, was quick.

i don't see why it's so hard for people to understand that a savvy political leader will profess the religion of his constituancy. i know this is an unpopular opinion here, and i know that christianity, and especially the lutheran variety of germany, is plenty anti-semitic, and i'm aware of hitlers' statements about how his "belief" led him to anti semitism, but i still believe he was an atheist. i think his behaviour was not due to his warped view of christianity, but to his warped view of neitzche.

Im Russian so I have some interest in Stalin and Hitler and have a biography on both men. Both men went to seminary, both were very far from religious, but they sure used religion every chance they got. (yes even Stalin).

And you are right about the dick sucking comment, my point was simply to polint out that there is a high probability that Tucker is the very thing he despises most.

i'm aware of hitlers' statements about how his "belief" led him to anti semitism, but i still believe he was an atheist.

jb -

As I suspect you will agree, the most important issue with regards to "Hitler's religion" is contained in your own statement "a savvy political leader will profess the religion of his constituency". Whether or not Hitler actually believed his Christian utterences is not all that important - what is important is that people followed him, and he explicitly used Christianity because he understood that it would help imbue his views with a patina of morality.

tim: agreed. and thanks for the spelling correction on "constituency".:)

a caveat, however: whether hitler ACTUALLY believed his own utterances etc. is, i think, the issue here, whether it's the most important one or not.

just because you get killed by someone wearing a gargoyle mask doesn't mean you've been killed by a gargoyle.(tm):)

I want to pull my hair out every time I hear someone say the belief someone watching over you make people more moral. To me this is equal to the argument a totalitarian government can keep you safer then a democracy. Many totalitarian governments had next to no crime because people were too afraid of being executed or worst. It doesn’t make it a better society. Morality through fear is paper thin and much easier for people of power to abuse. Hitler or Stalin might have been atheist but they sure knew how to take advantage of Morality though religion. Religion is the totalitarian version of morality. I thing it about time we though that out the door like the totalitarian governments of the past and let it be base on democratic principles. Let common sense and man-kind determine morality instead of relying on one source. Let a feeling of right/wrong and the want for not only your self but human kind to be better in the future rather then fear make you do what right. (Sorry for the ramble and I know I am a horrible writer but I thing I got my point across hopefully)

"Now why was it when the Cultural Revolution led to the deaths of 20 million..."

Nowhere near that number of people died during the Cultural Revolution. Wikipedia:"possibly as many as half a million people died."

Furthermore, under Mao, there were no extermination camps, ever, and there was no government plan of mass execution during the Cultural Revolution or any other time. There was political persecution directed by the state, and some of those persecuted by the state were murdered during the Cutural Revolution, but this was not a state plan and the vast majority of these people were not killed by the state or under the direction of the state. There was a horrible famine killing millions caused by the Great Leap Forward, but no historian or anyone with knowledge of China has claimed that that the Great Leap Forward was directed at starving people on purpose. Everyone acknowledges that the goal was in fact the exact opposite.

I don't ike Mao, but the idea of comparing him to Hitler, which for some reason seems to have gained wide acceptance in the past 10 years or so, is an obscene distortion of the facts. (And yes, Mao really was an atheist).

a caveat, however: whether hitler ACTUALLY believed his own utterances etc. is, i think, the issue here, whether it's the most important one or not.

Hitler's religion isn't as controversial or confusing as many people with a political agenda try to make it out to be. He was a lapse Catholic who just never really bought into it, he believed in God, but more importantly he believed in Wagner. His religious ideas were extant but confused (a poster above used an appropriate term - nebulous spirituality). He wasn't overly enthusiastic about all of the Neo-Paganism that Himmler was, and he recognized very early on the political capital to be gained by playing Rome like a fiddle. He had a Nazified laïcism pointman in Ludwig Muller, and eventual plans to completely rid Germany of Christianity as we knew it then and today. How he'd go about doing that and what it'd be replaced with is wholly conjecture, though we can guess it'd be very Wagnerian and Nationalist, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that it'd resemble something close to the Roman Imperial Cult. The Thousand Year Reich itself would likely have been host to a multitude of religions, religious conflict, mystery cults, neo-paganism and Hitler was rumoured (through unsubstantiated accounts) to have even expressed admiration for Islam, but definitely alle Juden verboten.

I still maintain that religion itself isn't responsible for people killing others and using religion as justification, but rather what people make of religion. Ego and Alter exist beyond religion, and identity itself is the issue, religion is just a pre-existing fiction and ready-made justification.

Dionysus said: "I still maintain that religion itself isn't responsible for people killing others and using religion as justification, but rather what people make of religion. Ego and Alter exist beyond religion, and identity itself is the issue, religion is just a pre-existing fiction and ready-made justification."

While I agree with that to some extent, I would add a very strong emphasis also on that aspects of religion such as dogmatism serve as enablers in these cases in no small way. It is these aspects which are strong in most religious views that maintain their culpability.

I think someone here once put it that they dislike religion because it is a most potent megaphone for harmful extremist ideas and influence, and this is one of the reasons why.

Looks like Tucker (whom I like to call Fucker) was taken by surprise. I don't think he was planning on such a challenge. I love it when that happens. What an ass!

Looks like Tucker (whom I like to call Fucker) was taken by surprise. I don't think he was planning on such a challenge. I love it when that happens. What an ass!

That's right, folks, you better be moral and good because [Insert deity of your choice here] is coming to town:

HIT IT, BOYS!

[Music starts]

You better watch out

You better not cry

Better not pout

I'm telling you why

[Insert deity of your choice here] is coming to town

He's making a list

And checking it twice;

Gonna find out

Who's naughty and nice

[Insert deity of your choice here] is coming to town

He sees you when you're sleeping

He knows when you're awake

He knows if you've been bad or good

So be good for goodness sake!

OH! You better watch out!

You better not cry

Better not pout

I'm telling you why

[Insert deity of your choice here] is coming to town

[Insert deity of your choice here] is coming to town

Thank you, thank you very much, and don’t forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses, and kids, eat your veggies and listen to your mommies!

If Tucker were right and that is a very long shot indeed, then those amoral atheist leaders would neccessarily head up the most moral countries in the world. Whose people were watched more closely than those of of the communist dictatorships. Surely that must have made them the most ethically pure societies our planet has ever seen.

Man, this is a great discussion. Lots of interesting points.

Gotta love a discussion where i can appreciate and agree with most arguers on each side of each issue brought up.

Rather than focusing on the importance of the personal beliefs of Hitler (as the high exemplar of bad behavior), I view the issue as being how he was able to use religion as a common ground on which to argue and persuade a nation of seemingly decent people to accept, or at least turn a blind eye toward, his hateful and destructive agenda.

As often expressed by Dawkins and his delightful co-conspirators, the problem arises in the social taboo against calling anyone's religiosity into question. As long as we are browbeaten into remaining quiet while religion is used to perpetuate social injustice, religion, even in the hearts of the moderate and decent folk, is dangerous to our well being.

While i find it distasteful to try to convert or subvert the personal and private beliefs of the religious, i feel an urgent need to force them to abandon the god/morality defense of attempts to influence public policy. In a state where the government is secular, all infringements on our freedoms should be able to be argued successfully from a social contract theory devoid of religious moralization. If a rule cannot be argued secularly, it should be abandoned. When the religious influence on our laws is harmless it is at best unnecessary, when it hinders positive social change it is damnably dangerous.

Private morality does not make good public policy. And we should demand the right to question its influence always.

Haha... anyone else notice that their on-screen graphic in the beginning spelled "atheist" wrong? Dumb sods. Couldn't watch the rest of the clip after that. ;)

He is a patronizing, arrogant son of a B*&@%. Let the women speak, he was attacking her when she clearly stated she wasn't an atheist. He back peddled when she called him out about referring to Atheists being immoral because they don't have anyone to watch over them. And who is to say having someone watch over you is going to make you any moral? Look at how many priests get caught molesting children, how moral are they? Being an Atheist doesn't make you a bad person, just like being Catholic doesn't make you a good one.

Susceptor, it's sort of offensive that you equate Tucker's idiocy with cocksucking. I can assure you, at least 90% of the stupidity that goes on this world is thanks to non-cocksuckers like you.

I've got to say that the idea that religeon makes people behave in a moral way is just a crock. If the only reason people are nice to each other - or at least not "bad" to each other - is that they are afraid the big guy is watching, then I don't want them to be nice to me. Do unto others - that's a good reason to be decent - no heaven/hell involved. I'd really rather you be good to me because YOU WANT TO, rather than because you are scared of a really hot place. And the idea that you can make up for being creepy to me by saying a bunch of Hail Marys - or by asking for forgiveness - that sucks too.

JUST BE NICE... and LEAVE MY SH** ALONE!

tucker needs someone to watch over him. very badly. he's the dumb, entitled, bullying bastard son of bill o'reilly and joseph goebbels the christian. he also needs to retire from the media and return to school. move to the upper west side of manhattan. get some learning into him. humble himself in the eyes of the maker for whom he believes he is being a good little boy (a whiny entitled bullying little boy) as well as all his viewers and interviewees. (actually, if he thought about it, his god is the camera, which watches him every single day as he generates more confusion than anyone in this world or the next needs - and the fact that the camera is watching him certainly does not make him a good man! in fact, quite the opposite.) why are so-called religious do-gooders like tucker so hateful? why does tucker have a job in which involves millions of people listening to his words?
creeeepy.

I don't know if you noticed, but Tucker's people misspelled "ATHIEST'S BIBLE" on the title underneath about a minute in. They change it later and correct it.

I think they both sounded like a couple of idiots.

I"m also quite sick of idiots like Tucker claiming that the Nazis werent Christian. They most certainly were. I doubt the Pope would have supported them if he hadnt been.

It's also spelled 'Atheist's Bible' at the very beginning when they show the book in the top left corner. Brilliant.

Damn it, I can't edit my posts. It is misspelled as 'Athiest' right at the front.

Man, a lot of people noticed that they misspelled atheist, but didn't notice that many others noticed that they misspelled atheist as well. It amused me, thats all I'm saying

These media types make the assertion of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Polpot, et al. - dictators of totalitarian leaderships firstly, then being influenced by their political dispositions - were Atheists because it is popular belief that they were. This question is often raised, I think, to see how Atheists or defenders of Atheism will refute it. It's become an introductory question to any discussion of Atheism in public affairs. It serves three purposes:

a) it says, "Aha!" while it makes a pitifully unsubstantiated claim that the claimant feels is equally unresearched by the Atheist, b) it perpetuates the unsubstantiated claim by merely coming up in the conversation because they know non-atheistic, uncaring viewers will take only extreme points from the discussion, combining those with their already preconceived notion of what Atheism is (immoral, depraved, genocidal, homocidal, etc...), and c) if it isn't handled well, it has only put on display, as a discussion point, the "negative side" of Atheism; therefore, to the viewers, "belief" wins by default.

No one would dare associate themselves with the same "religion" they thought Hitler or Mao were apart of. But, of course, the claim initially is never supported by reason or evidence that these fascist dictators were in fact Atheists. The question really only has superficial value. I think it's necessary to understand this, and that this question is usually never brought up in scholarly debate. It's only a anti-marketing tool against Atheism, while, just as effectively, existing as a marketing tool for "belief in something."

Tuckhead should have said, "My personal problem with intelligence is".

He gives new meaning to the word "clueless".

Now that's entertainment!

IMO the poor conversation was worth it just for the calling of Tucker "juvenile".

OMG! people who act out of fear of a diety or in expectation of a reward from said diety are not "moral". their actions are selfish. if a child is told to behave for 5 minutes and in return he will receive ice cream for the next 100 years and yet if he acts up he will be burned with a blow torch for the next 100 years, the child will behave. the child has been given an easy choice that has nothing to do with morality, ethics, or good will. in this sense only those who do not believe in judgement from a diety can be said to be truly good. the actions of the two may be the same but the one who thinks he is being rewarded is not necessarily good.

Wow, I can't believe this kind of talk about morality is so prevalent in discussions about theism/atheism. How is it moral for you to be "good" just because you think your god is watching and can send you to hell or strike you with lightning if you do something that he decrees "bad"? THAT should be our ideal of what morality is? Be good just because daddy is watching? By touting this as "morality" you're basically admitting that left to your own rationality you'd be perfectly willing to go out and do whatever you like without any kind of moral concern. Yet that's somehow BETTER than being an atheist and having your own inner sense of morality and empathy that you recognize as having REAL WORLD consequences. Unbelievably idiotic.

This ass-clown should have stayed at Fox News.