Atheist S.E. Cupp: ‘I Would Never Vote for an Atheist President’

When I posted about S.E. Cupp last week, it was because she was complaining about how “crazy, militant atheists” (a.k.a. the Secular Coalition for America) had released a presidential “scorecard” grading the candidates on how they treated issues of church/state separation.

Somehow, I missed the other “revelatory” thing she said:

It followed commentary on whether Mitt Romney‘s Mormon faith would hurt him in the election. One of the hosts asked how Romney would fare if he were an atheist candidate.

Cupp immediately said he would have no chance — and I agree — but then she said something pretty amazing, considering she is an atheist herself:

And you know what? I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever… Because I do not think that someone who represents 5 to 10 percent of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me.

I like that there is a check, OK? That there‘s a person in the office that doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state… I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here… Atheists don’t have that.

Oh boy.

The atheist panelist doesn’t want an atheist in office because… that person would just be too damn rational, relying on “experts” and the “Constitution” instead of nonsense?

To paraphrase one of Cupp’s co-hosts, that is one self-loathing atheist.

Let’s talk about the obvious responses:

Both of the candidates in the upcoming election are already minorities in important ways. President Obama is black (13.1% of the population). Romney is both wealthy (<1%) and a Mormon (1.4%). So why rule out atheists just because our beliefs put us in a minority?! (By the way, if you count people who are simply not religious — instead of those who call themselves atheists — the number jumps to 15% for all Americans and 22% for Americans 18-29.)

Also, who cares if we’re in the minority? We’re not the people who believe in mythical nonsense! We’re the ones who work off of what the evidence tells us! (At least in theory.) Everyone should want that in a president! Why would Cupp cede that turf to irrational people?

As it turns out, this isn’t a new statement from her. Cupp said the exact same things in a C-SPAN interview in 2009 with host Brian Lamb — and Lamb followed up with those same points:

Cupp: As an atheist I could never imagine electing, voting for an atheist president for exactly those reasons. I mean religion keeps a person who is endowed with so much power honest. This is a person who’s answering to a higher power every night. And not to the state, he doesn’t think the state has all the power and he doesn’t think he himself has all the power. That’s important to me.

I mean I represent two percent of the world. Why would I want someone who thinks that 98 percent of the world is crazy running the country?

Lamb: But you don’t think that that higher power exists.

Cupp: I don’t but I don’t think people are crazy. I understand the allure of religion. I really do I’m just not going to be dishonest and say that I believe in something that I don’t yet.

Lamb: But what if he’s hearing voices all the time and taking advice from a higher power that doesn’t exist in your opinion and makes decisions based on the higher power that doesn’t exist in your opinion?

Cupp: Well I mean people’s faith is very personal and I don’t judge the way that people use their faith to inform their decisions. I really don’t. We can judge him on his policies whether he heard it from a voice in his head, he got it from the Bible, he had a conversation with Laura one night over dinner. I mean it doesn’t really matter to me.

I’d like to judge the policies on face value.

What. The. Hell.

This is how Cupp rationalizes her weird beliefs. At face value, it makes sense to say we should only judge the policies and not how the policies were formed. But we don’t always have the luxury of being able to debate every policy decision a president makes. Hell, bombs can be dropped by a President without prior discussion with Congress or the American public. We should all want a president who has good judgment. Someone who thinks talking to an invisible man in the sky is the best form of guidance does not have good judgment.

Yes, I know both of the current candidates say they seek guidance from above. So why am I voting for Obama again this year? Because I believe his faith is just a political device for him — he says he consults with God, and maybe he does, but I think he makes decisions after consulting with smart people surrounding him. In other words, he makes decisions and then finds ways to rationalize them in religious terms — instead of looking to religion first and then making the decision.

Romney may end up doing the same thing, but I don’t trust the people he associates with nor do I think his policy ideas would make our country a better place.

S.E. Cupp said last week that “militant atheists” were “intolerant” of religious people. But, in the same segment, she flat-out dismissed the possibility of ever voting for an atheist, no matter the political party or the policies that person wanted to put in place.

That is intolerance.

And she would never have gotten away with that if she said the word “Jew” or “Muslim” instead. So why is it ok to marginalize us? It shouldn’t be.

It’s just sad that it came from someone who is an atheist herself and should know better. She might as well have said, “I would never vote for someone like me to be President, because I’m incompetent to do the job unless I consult an imaginary friend!”

If MSNBC wants to keep letting these hosts talk about atheism — which I’m all for — they need to get someone on air who can represent the millions of us who don’t believe in god and don’t want to compromise our values for the sake of appealing to religious Americans who are wrong on these issues. S.E. Cupp doesn’t represent us.

By the way, I’ve reached out to her for an interview regarding this topic. So far, no response. I’ll let you know if that changes.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://twitter.com/JoeCascio Joe Cascio

    Where on earth did this S.E. Cupp come from and how is she now a national spokeswoman for atheists?

    • newavocation

      She’s the ‘newer’ atheist brought to you by the gods that fund right wing media.

    • Marsha A.

      She definitely is NO atheist spokesperson! She, and Fox News, may think so, but she does not speak for me or any atheist I know. We just don’t go around whining that we wish we could believe in God. And we don’t ask each other “why are you mad at God?” 

  • Buffy2q

    She’s like the “Conservative gays”.  Self-loathing and continuously sucking up to the people who hate her most.  People like her do as much damage as, if not more than, the religious bigots. 

  • Jake LeMaster

    I think she is some sort of  a plant..  She is far too unreal.

  • Drew84

    That’s okay cause we don’t want a crazy batshit insane woman who claims to be an atheist to suck up to the world’s largest industry that would gladly put her to death if the US was a theocracy. 

  • Gordon Duffy

    I don’t see why anyone would think that believing you have a “get out of jail free card” in Jesus would keep someone honest. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/unclexbob Ryan Langford

    I know it can be interpreted as the ‘no true scottsman’ fallacy, but I really think she is just playing a charade.  The first time I ever saw her was on Bill Maher where she asked Bill Maher why he hates god? I’m sorry, only a parody of an atheist could ask such a mind-blowing silly question.

    • jdm8

      Sometimes “no true scottsman” comes into the conversation, but I think they’re fair questions.  She’s also said she wants to raise her children to believe in god, because she doesn’t think that you can teach morality without god. I think that most likely suggests that either she doesn’t understand what she is saying, or her career is based on a cynical ploy.

      • Patterrssonn

        Or she’s batshit crazy.

      • Kodie

         Wait a second… how can she say such things? The first thing my mind goes to is how S.E. Cupp strongly implies that she doesn’t believe she herself possesses morals.

        • Alex

           In other words, she is an evil, immoral atheist. Like the rest of us.

          • Kodie

             Why doesn’t someone point this out to her?

    • 3lemenope

      It’s not a no true scotsman to simply assert that some entity doesn’t meet the definition of the group that is being asserted. It’s only, technically, a no true scotsman if someone changes their definitions in mid-argument specifically for the purposes of isolating an example from the subject of discussion.

      If everyone asserts right out of the gate that she’s just a fake atheist who is playing one on TV for the lulz and the paycheck, that’s nothing more or less than simply saying that you think she’s a liar. (And all the evidence, so far, seems supportive of that conclusion.) It would only be a no true scotsman if you were arguing about atheists in general and someone introduced a “But, S. E. Cupp…” argument and you responded with “but she’s not a real atheist anyway” even if she notionally met the definitions you’d been working with at the beginning of the conversation.

  • Tom from Cleveland

    I’m not so sure Cupp is really an atheist.  I think she might be a christian troll.

    • Nkendall

      Yeah, she sounds like a straw-person. 

    • http://twitter.com/_mikeweber Mike Weber

      I agree. Can we start referring to her an “atheist” with quotes, because there’s no way she actually is one. I’m not trying to fall into the “no true Scotsman” argument. But I’m not going to be surprised by the day she makes an announcement that she’s finally seen the light and has a “miraculous” conversion to Christianity. 

      • Randomfactor

        Just use the journamalism format:  “Cupp,  who calls herself an  atheist…”

        • MorganR

          Or a “self-proclaimed” atheist.  We Pagans often are called that.

      • Dwayne_Windham

         I’m looking for something along the lines of ATHINO – Atheist in Name Only?

    • Christinatrin

       That is EXACTLY what I was going to say.

    • RobMcCune

      I find it hard to believe she is an atheist who honestly holds those opinions. In my opinion she is either a secret christian, or is willing to say anything to remain a conservative pundit. Both are equally plausible.

      • Dubliner

        Maybe she figures that many politicians especially Republican ones get to the top because they are sociopaths. She may therefore wonder if fearing a deity is a useful failing for a sociopath to have given their lack of basic humanity! Mind you apparently Bush and Cheney are ‘god fearing’ and they still killed hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason so more likely sociopaths find ways to justify their behaviour no matter what their beliefs.

    • Duke OfOmnium

       I accept the fact that she’s an atheist for the same reason that I accept that the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan are Christians: namely, that she identifies herself as such.  That being said, she surely sounds like a reverse Poe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joequincy Jon Peterson

      … like an inverse Poe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joequincy Jon Peterson

      … like an inverse Poe.

    • Alex

       Christian or not, but she does look a lot like a strawman to point at and laugh, “look what those stupid atheists say.”

    • thilinab

      Atheist doesn’t automatically mean rational or not crazy. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Maximo-Alberto-Brito-Fernandez/1206341188 Maximo Alberto Brito Fernandez

      I totally agree. The must be getting paid to be a troll

  • UnknownWeirdo

    definitely an anthropomorphized strawman

  • Brian

    Cupp: I don’t but I don’t think people are crazy. I understand the allure of religion. I really do I’m just not going to be dishonest and say that I believe in something that I don’t yet.

    Yet? Says a lot with one word.

    • David

      I was thinking the exact same thing Brian.

    • http://thatsajennstory.com/ Jennwith2ns

       I noticed that, too.

    • http://profiles.google.com/kelvins273 Kevin Smith

       Yep. It seems Cupp’s whole gimmick is saying that she’s an atheist but she thinks religious people are better than atheists and she wishes she could be one of them. She seems to exist to confirm Christian stereotypes that all atheists hate themselves, have psychological problems, and just need something to fill the God-shaped hole in their hearts.

    • Marco

      I did catch that one the other day. It will be soon: “S.E.Cupp, once an abashed atheist has converted to christianity”.

      Then from that position Fox news will have their token “Former Atheist” and they won’t bother invite the real ones to their shows. 
      I know this sounds “tinfoil hat” but it would make perfect sense. 

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      I was wondering how Mr. Mehta did not notice that “yet.” 

      I think this article captured the flaws of her reasoning, but there is one other.

      We tend to distrust others with freedom. We will say that we are good, or honest, or trustworthy and can handle the responsibility of whatever freedom, but that others are too irresponsible to handle the same freedom.

      Very unAmerican. If I want to have a freedom, I need to allow others the same freedom.

      I do not know which logical fallacy this is, but we are irrational, biased creatures. We clearly do not have the objectivity to claim superiority to others. That is one of the conceits of religion, not of rationality.

      Maybe she thinks she is being honest. Maybe she was raised with the idea that without something to watch over us, we cannot be good, and just has it so ingrained that she does not realize that it contradicts both atheism and agnosticism.

      There is nothing about atheism that requires intelligence, rationality, or kindness. We take it for granted that these are atheist qualities, while superstitious people assume that we are the opposite (based on their conceit).

      Atheist just means not falling for the biggest hoax of all.

      .

      • Rwlawoffice

        So as a self professed irrational and biased person you profess the superiority of rationality at the same time you claim that religion is conceited? Sounds like a very rational argument.

        • matt

           Making the claim that your god is the best god and all others are false sounds pretty conceited to me.  That’s what most religions profess is it not?  Rationality is most definitely superior to this

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          Science is about understanding that we are biased and that we should not assume too much.

          Logical reasoning means that we prove each part of our argument, rather than say that it is written in a book that we trust and therefore is immune to logic.We control assumptions to prevent making logical errors.Assuming that there is a supernatural creature who defies logic is clearly illogical and unscientific..

  • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

    She’s a carefully positioned plant, which Fox News wants everybody to refer to when they think about how atheists “should” be like. So whenever they meet an atheist who rubs them the wrong way, “Oh, well that’s not how atheists should behave… look at S.E. Cupp! She’s an atheist and managed to embrace Christianity, faith in general, and the right wing!”

  • flyb

    This shouldn’t be so surprising. As Hemant already pointed out, she’s pretty much always masqueraded as an atheist… AINO? It’s her gimmick to get more air time and book deals. Or maybe it’s the fake eyeglasses. Anyway, someone needs to call her out on the air.

  • David

    This just goes to show that not all atheists are really, really smart and logical people. Just like not all gays have loads of disposable income and live  super fabulous, trendy lives. Trust me on that last part. ; )

  • Azel

    Ok, she have to explain to poor old me why in the blazes an atheist shouldn’t be elected because he represents only 5 to 10% of the American population whereas a Mormon can although he represents even less (1.4 %) And don’t she starts with her shtick on “contrary to the faithfuls, atheists think others are crazy” because one, that’s patently false and two, faithfuls do think other faithfuls are crazy, misguided, traitors…

  • Mary

    I had to google this Cupp person. What I found makes me think she is either one very confused (and highly ignorant!) puppy or a lame attempt by the Christian Right to discredit the integrity of atheists. 

    • digitalatheist

      Sadly, the more I hear about her, the more I come to feel that she isn’t an atheist, she just plays one on TV.

  • Coby

    S.E. Cupp definitely has an agenda and it’s NOT to move the atheist movement forward.  I question the intentions of her placement in the media.

    • Sindigo

      Absolutely. Whether she’s actually and atheist or not is irrelevant at this point. She clearly doesn’t care about the issues that affect the non-religious and exists in the media solely to push a Conservative agenda. Whether it’s hers or not is another issue.

  • https://agoldstardad.wordpress.com/ Fozzy

    Wow.. I am no longer skeptical…. What a complete and utter fraud. 

  • Kaoru Negisa

    Does anyone else get the feeling that SE Cupp feels *afflicted* by atheism? Like she really, really wishes she could believe in god, but she fell on a post as a kid and it left a god-shaped hole in her heart, so she looks at all the cool kids like Michelle Malkin and Ralph Reed, wishing she could put stock in fairy tales, too?

    • Kodie

      Yeah, I don’t know that she isn’t truly an atheist. It does seem like a gimmick, but I also don’t think all atheists are “good without god.” Some people still frame all their questions as if there’s a supernatural answer and are dissatisfied that there isn’t, let down, or without purpose. I have had some very hard times sometimes that I may have wished a god could fix it somehow, and knowing that wasn’t going to happen was very discouraging to me. Realizing you have to do it yourself is not an upbeat prospect for many people, and the religious prey on people at their lowest for just this reason. I don’t believe in any god, never have, and it’s not always been what I would call “helpful.”

      I think people think she’s not really an atheist because she believes so many false things about atheists, as some monolithic fearsome group that wants everything she doesn’t, and she portrays what Christians cling to their faith in order to prevent themselves becoming. Rather than see her finally “convert” to Christianity, I’d like her to one day say, “Oh, I get it now.” S.E. Cupp desperately wants an invisible friend, and he won’t come to play with her, so of course this makes her so sad and lonely, and ridiculous. What a weird persona, like Elvira or Crazy Eddie. I’m kind of tired of seeing all this though, it’s kind of celebrity-gossipy. She seems like such a flavor of the month that I don’t know why anyone cares what she says anymore.

    • CultOfReason

       She reminds me of the the self-loathing gay Christians that try to “fix” their “problem” through therapy.  Her words imply that atheism is a problem that needs to be fixed.

      She’s either really dumb/delusional or smart as a Fox (TM)

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      She is an Art history major, where she learned the most valuable lesson of art, If you can’t paint a picture on canvas then paint a picture in peoples minds, basically become a scam artist.

  • pq83

    err.. how does being an atheist makes you believe you’re “bigger” than the government? and isn’t that exactly what the religious persons believe… they think they’re elected by GOD himself, to run the country as he/she thinks his/her GOD wants them to run it. 

  • Tinker

    While I agree that most likely Cupp is having difficulty understanding Atheism, she may have a point.

    Most politicians are very egotistical and think that they are better than everyone else. An Atheist president would not answer to a ‘Higher Power’ and may think of himself (herself) as a god.

    However, since I don’t believe that there are very many politicians that REALLY believe in God themselves, (instead using religion as it has been used since the beginning, as tool to keep the people in line), I don’t think that it matters whether they are an ‘out’ Atheist or not. Personally, I will say about an Atheist presidential candidate what a lot of people said about George Wallace; I may not like everything he says, but I know that he is telling the truth about his beliefs.

    • Rabid

      I wish people would stop spouting this cliche gibberish about how atheists not believing in one of the myriad of imaginary sky fairies leads them to think that they themselves are a “god”.

      There is not a god shaped hole in our hearts and minds we need to fill with something else, OK?

      The higher power for an “atheist president” or any other national leader is US, the people whose power got him there. You know, the way it’s supposed to be.

      • Bubba Tarandfeathered

         Darn-it,  I guess I gotta toss out all those Joseph Campbell books now.

    • Buffy2q

       It seems Cupp isn’t the only one having difficulty understanding atheism.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ORRVVC5R2QWLTXEM6SX5L6BORE Jay Arrrr

       “An Atheist president would not answer to a ‘Higher Power’ and may think of himself (herself) as a god.”

      Oh, spare me. And I suppose you can’t conceive of a theist president thinking he’s at least a peer of, if not superior to, Gawd?

      • Jeff Xenobuilder

         And why didn’t that “Higher Power” keep the priests and pastors from raping little boys and girls?  She is no atheist, and certainly no freethinker.

    • Isilzha

      It’s all fun and games until the POTUS starts getting orders from their imaginary friend.

    • Marco

      No she doesn’t. Her arguments are nonsensical. 

  • Renshia

    the only thing S.E.Cupp is a grand standing mouth piece saying stupid things to get attention. I have seen enough to know she just wants attention and has nothing rational to say or to contribute. She does this because playboy would never give her the front page.

    • 1000 Needles

      I appreciate the disdain for S. E. Cupp, but there’s no need for the additional sex-shaming.

      You wouldn’t accuse Alain de Botton of a failed Playgirl bid, so don’t bring gender and appearance into your criticisms of Cupp. They are irrelevant to her qualifications as an atheist.

      • Pascale Laviolette

        Well said.  does anyone else feel that women are more often accused of “wanting attention” when they say ridiculous shit?  I could be wrong here, just honestly curious.

        • 3lemenope

          It’s not just you. When a guy says something stupid, stupid is the word that is used. When a female does the same, there is usually a weird detour into sexual and sartorial speculation, with attention being paid to hipster glasses and hair color and potential at being a stereotypical “airheaded model”. 

          It’s obnoxious. It’s misogynistic. It’s gross. It happens all the time.

          • Get over yourselves

            She’s an attention whore and a stupid bitch. How’s that?

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            This does appear to be a remnant of religion that a lot of atheists have trouble ridding ourselves of. 

            We reject the rest of the religious silliness, why stop there?.

      • Renshia

         I stand corrected and I apologize. Your right it was uncalled for.

  • Ian Norman

    Come on, noone believes, that Cupps is an atheist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001627228091 Alexander Ryan

    And this shall make news with the religious crowd while all the stories of priests raping boys are ignored. Woo.

  • Logan Rockhound

    I don’t understand why there are so many articles about Cupp on here, lately. Everyone knows she’s a clown. 

    Personally, I think she’s only adopted the label “atheist” so as to get more attention, but I have no proof, so whatever.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      I had never heard of her before. I only rarely watch TV. I do not watch MSNBC or FOX News, so I have not seen her before. I was surprised that anyone is paying her to act as she does. Even Bill O’Reilly will have atheists on to discuss religion/atheism without this doublespeak. Bill O’Reilly has much more integrity than S.E. Cupp. 

      .

  • Psychotic Atheist

    “I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home
    every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power
    resides right here”

    Personally speaking, as an atheist, I want my executive power held by someone that goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here too.

    That’s why I don’t think a President who believes in God is intrinsically a good idea: After all, ‘he’ ‘goes home every night’ and performs a ritual which produces results no evidentially superior to talking to yourself.  Therefore, a President that talks to God is no different than a President that talks to themselves as far as anybody can tell.  And so therefore they may well be acting as if there is nobody above him and as if the power resides ‘right here’. Even if they genuinely believe the answers come ‘from above’, they probably aren’t.

    On the other hand, I would want a President who does indeed address a power above them.  The People.  This acts like a ‘check’.  In a constitutional direction, rather than a theological one.  And the President should believe that the power does not reside with themselves – it is a power that is given to them by the People.

    But then, I’m crazy so what do I know?

    • Kodie

      If she thinks believing in god will make a theist president more likely to factor in his eternal damnation and so wouldn’t do something that’s a “sin” (not that that stopped any president before, technically speaking, except maybe Carter). However, he may feel justified in starting a war he can’t finish, use the prospect of endtimes to make poor decisions, etc. Believing god has appointed you to effect whatever you make out to be his wishes can be extremely bad for the country, and well, she’s an idiot if she can’t think this through.

  • Tainda

    “And she would never have gotten away with that if she said the word “Jew” or “Muslim” instead. So why is it ok to marginalize us? It shouldn’t be.”
    No, it shouldn’t be and she pisses me off.  

    I’m a fairly open minded kind of atheist.  I believe people should be free to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Saying that, I do NOT believe their imaginary friend should be involved in government whatsoever!  I think they are all crazy but I’m not rude about it.  I wish everyone could wake up one day and realize how delusional they have been but it’s not going to happen in our lifetime so we may as well deal with it.  

    Basically, right now, I’m what I call a cuddly atheist.  It’s ridiculous morons like her that make the militants she hates so much.  The more and more she opens her mouth and the more and more idiotic articles I read about the religious right doing something absolutely horrifying, pisses me off more each day and I turn to the “dark side”.

    I hear they have cookies anyway :P

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ORRVVC5R2QWLTXEM6SX5L6BORE Jay Arrrr

    She’s not an Atheist, but she plays one on TV…

    Oh, it gets worse, I keep wanting to call her “Dee” Cupp…

    • Tainda

      Think she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

    • Isilzha

      I would like your comment for the first statement, but can’t because you stoop to body shaming in the 2nd.  Please don’t. 

      • T-Rex

        Awww, someone got all offended by a references to cup/boob sizes.  Are you fucking serious?

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    She also wants everyone to take her claim of being atheist at face value.

  • http://www.facebook.com/oswegowriter Matthew Harmer

    I’m convinced that S.E. Cupp is a Poe’s Law/strawman Atheist, that she will convert to Fox News Christianity within the next two years in an extremely public manner, that this conversion will be accompanied by all the pomp, circumstance, and smarminess that she and other Fox News Christians can muster, and that she’ll be talking the rest of her life about how horribly depressing and limiting it was to be an Atheist.

    • Sindigo

      Someone should grab www (dot) countdowntoconversion (dot) com so we can predict her “Road to Damascus” moment now.

      • OverlappingMagisteria

         My thoughts exactly. Also keep an eye out for her upcoming book: “The S.E. Cupp story: How a prominent Atheist media personality found God”

        • Sindigo

          Oh god, you’re right. I can see it now. Maybe if enough of us pre-order it on Amazon now it will look sufficiently ridiculous.

      • Kodie

         We should start a betting pool.

        • Sindigo

          For a betting pool to work you need to have someone to bet against you. I think everyone agrees that this is a sure thing.

          • Kodie

            I was thinking more like a grid. I don’t know what gamblers call things – eg. “Who had March 2nd 2017, 3:00pm?”

            • http://twitter.com/RobHoffmann Rob Hoffmann

               You’re thinking of something like a baby pool.

              Only we’re not betting on the birth of a baby, but the death of a lie…

            • Sindigo

              OIC, that could work. For the record, I don’t think it will take them that long. My money’s on March 12th 2013.

              • akbatgirly

                I say February 12th, that’s Darwin’s birthday.  I know this because it is also my son’s, and his sister is jealous that he got an amazing scientist, while she just ended up with politicians and actors!

                I am an atheist who, for the sake of family harmony, allowed my parents to take the kids to church.  What the heck, it was free babysitting!  At first it seemed like a good idea…………they liked dressing up and eating potluck in the church basement, having quality time with the grandparents!  Then I started to wonder if they were actually becoming Christian.  One day one of them asked me what I believed……………I hemmed and hawed and finally admitted that I was no Believer.  They both then declared that they weren’t either (nature, or nurture?).  

                I was relieved!  I mean, I have hoped that I have an open mind and don’t really care if my kids become religious or not…………….but when it comes down to it, I never feel totally comfortable around religious people, I always have to watch what I say.

                I don’t think that a true Atheist would desire that her children would be religious.  I mean, you want to have things in common with your children, you want to be relaxed around them.

                Also, true atheists realize that morality is as innate as language, they don’t go around claiming that you can’t be moral without an imaginary friend forcing good behavior on you.

                As far as I can tell, this is indeed a glaring set-up so that they can parade her around as a “former atheist”.

                • Lyunes298

                   I was the same way. I already had kids when I finally “left” xtinity. I’d even already had my first child baptized (so afraid was of I of that boogie man, mean ole Satan) So, my 3 sons and I kind of came to atheism together. We educated ourselves, learned and grew together. But due to my indoctrination as a child, for several years I still struggled with the idea that religion teaches “morality”. Therefore, I said if I ever had another child I would have him/her attend church and then allow him/her to make the choice. Well, I did have another child. She was born when my youngest was almost 14. I found out pretty quickly that idea of allowing her to attend church and learn the xtian doctrine was not gonna work out. For one thing, I refused to be a hypocrite. So when Grandma dropped her off from fairytale school and she started parroting the b.s. I’d crack up and say “T” that’s just as real as Santa or the Easter Bunny. You know they’re not real, why would you believe this nonsense? Grandma didn’t like that. Her churchgoing ended pretty quickly. And children are pretty impressionable. Mama doesn’t believe, Big bros don’t believe. Well hell. Must not be true. She is 9 now. she is being raised with reason, logic, intelligence. No superstition. (Btw, I don’t mention a father with regards to my sons because he wasn’t around. My ex-husband abandoned my sons and moved to another country when they were 3, 4 and 5. And no, this is NOT what made me an atheist. And although my daughter’s father and I are not together, we have a healthy, friendly relationship. He’s a little scared of identifying himself as an atheist. He chooses to say he doesn’t believe in church. He’s already admitted to me years ago he doesn’t believe in the imaginary guy in the sky either. He’ll come around : )

        • digitalatheist

          maybe make it a 50-50 split with half the money going to the person who wins, and the other half to a secular charity of their choice ;-) $5 a pop which earns you a day and hour.

          Side bets on the impetus that caused the conversion can be made through unofficial channels in any amount.

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        Countdown to Cupp Conversion. If it is generic, it can be applied to others, but it is also less likely to be available. 

        By making it specific, and getting a lot of traffic to the site, it is clear that this is nothing unexpected.

        I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there is something wrong with her attempts at reasoning. 

        If nothing else, this can help make it clear that she does not represent atheists. Or are there many other atheists who are this foolish?

        .

    • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

       I think she’s more calculated than that. At this point she gets more publicity and recognition as “that hot conservative female atheist.” I think she’ll ride that wave for as long as she can. Then when she’s older and unattractive she’ll “find religion” to get the spotlight again.

  • Jporgal

    “In 2011, she was hired as a writer and commentator for Mercury Radio Arts, the organization owned and operated by Glenn Beck. Shortly after being hired by Beck, she was given her own show, “S.E. Cupp” on the Insider Extreme broadcast found on Glennbeck.com.That show has since moved to GBTV.”She is just an ignorant fuck, running around saying she is an atheist!

  • mikespeir

    “I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home
    every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power
    resides right here.”

    Whatever happened to The People?  I thought they were the “higher power” the President is supposed to answer to.

    • Sindigo

      All the likes.

    • Randomfactor

      We are the People of the United States of America.  Thou shalt not have strange “gods” before Us.

      • Scorpio5556

        I pledge allegiance , to the flag, of the united states of america , and to the republic ,from which it stands, one nation , UNDER GOD, indivisible , with liberty and justice for all. 

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          Your shouting would be more effective if you got the rest of it right.  Hint: it’s United States of America, and ‘for which it stands’.

          You’re welcome.

  • Isilzha

    I seriously don’t understand the argument that religion somehow (by magic??) guarantees a person has constraints on their behavior.  I’m much more afraid of what a person will do in the name of their religion.  Most religious texts advocate some horrible, nasty, despicable, immoral behavior in the name  their belief.

    • Tainda

      I have been told by many people “if you’re an atheist, how do you have any morals?”  They just can’t get it through their head that I  know what’s right and wrong without a book telling me so.

      They are “blinded by the light”

    • Stev84

       With religion anything is possible. And not in a good way

  • Blanc_Slate

    Something’s not right with that woman

  • http://billybobsbibleblog.blogspot.com/ billybobbibb

    I think S. E. Cupp is trying to play both sides of the fence, in the name of job security.  I think she probably is a “true” atheist, but she’s hesitant to take a Dave Silverman stand on national TV.

    • Kodie

      She certainly made up an unusual character to play on tv, in the name of job security. Perhaps she comes across so self-loathing because she has to say all that stuff and doesn’t believe any of it. ???? 

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    There is no fallacy in saying somebody is not a true Scotsman if, in fact, they are not a Scotsman at all!

  • bLaKouT

    You’re voting for Obama?! That’s rational.

  • unclemike

    I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned that she wrote an entire book about how horribly mean the leftist media is to Xtians.  She’s a joke.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephan-Goodwin/676660806 Stephan Goodwin

    So we should only judge people on policies and not on beliefs or where those polices come from.  Unless they are an atheist.  Then they OBVIOUS think everyone else is crazy and can’t be allowed power.  

    Wow.   She’s either1) Not an atheist
    2) a self loathing atheist that needs medical attention
    3) Lying for the moneyThe time to listen to her is at an end. 

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    The only question is, is she the kind of troll that should be ignored, or responded to?  I’d love to see David Silverman get the chance to ask her if, as an atheist, she would keep a dropped wallet, since “nobody is watching”.  And if she’s able to do the right thing without God watching, why can’t some Catholic Priests?

    • Tainda

      Every time she is on Real Time I can see Maher’s blood pressure going up and I can FEEL mine going up.

      I swear Bill has asked her the morality question on his show before but I could be thinking of someone else.

  • http://twitter.com/HumanistTweeter Humanist Tweeter

    From the Amazon description of Cupp’s book, “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity”:

    “From her galvanizing introduction, you know where S. E. Cupp stands: She’s an atheist. A non-believer. Which makes her the perfect impartial reporter from the trenches of a culture war dividing America and eroding the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded. Starting at the top, she exposes the unwitting courtship of President Obama and the liberal press, which consistently misreports or downplays Obama’s clear discomfort with, or blatant disregard for, religious America—from covering up religious imagery in the backdrop of his Georgetown University speech to his absence from events surrounding the National Day of Prayer, to identifying America in his inaugural address as, among other things, “a nation of non-believers.” She likens the calculated attacks of the liberal media to a class war, a revolution with a singular purpose: to overthrow God and silence Christian America for good. And she sends out an urgent call for allAmericans to push back the leftist propaganda blitz striking on the Internet, radio, television, in films, publishing, and print journalism—or invite the tyrannies of a “mainstream” media set on mocking our beliefs, controlling our decisions, and extinguishing our freedoms.”

    Miraculous and heavily publicised conversion to Christianity?

    Soon.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      What a tool Cupp is. In all senses of the word. She appears to be proselytizing as if she were on a pulpit, but not in one of those churches that allows women to preach, because those churches are much too liberal.

      She seems as if she would be happy with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because he answers to a higher power. How could he do wrong? Wanting to bring about the apocalypse is something that is OK with plenty of Evangelicals, so why not?

      Allah and God are not distinctions worth quibbling over. As long as the person believes, who are we to criticize?

      We should not judge him for praying that bad things happen to the United States. We should not use this to criticize religion, since 
      President Ahmadinejad  is a good and holy man. He should be respected and so should his ideas, which he says are guided by prayers.

      Who can argue with that? Certainly, a respectful Christian appreciates that I am adopting her logic.

      .

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=749242262 Dale Husband

    Are you sure this person is even an atheist? No real atheist betrays her own community the way this hypocrite so blatantly did!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=749242262 Dale Husband

    I checked her out and she is a CONSERVATIVE political commentator, in the same hideous class as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and some of those other creeps on FOX News…..and yet she is known as an atheist and is a commentator in MSNBC?!

  • http://www.facebook.com/gregm766 Gregory Marshall

    Is there such a thing as an atheist Uncle Tom? Because she sure is one if I have ever seen one.

  • Lacuna

    Cupp is not an atheist. Agnostic, maybe. Troll… possibly. I say this based on one word…

    “…believe in something that I don’t YET.”

    YET.

  • Coyotenose

    “Cupp: I don’t but I don’t think people are crazy. I
    understand the allure of religion. I really do I’m just not going to be
    dishonest and say that I believe in something that I don’t yet.”

    …that I don’t yet.

    That is not a normal thing to say, and it gives her away. Cupp is not an atheist. That is just her media shtick.

  • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

    My read is that she is merely taking advantage of a unique position available to her. The entertainment industry is competitive and people often need a gimmick to succeed. Her gimmick is being a conservative pro-religion female atheist. It makes for good conservative media and is a perfect fit for the Fox propaganda machine. I believe her when she says she doesn’t yet believe but wants to. I agree with others that if she wakes up one day and finds that her subconscious resolved the cognitive dissonance within her to make her actually believe, Fox will make it a huge media event. She will surely write a book and be financially set for life.

  • Darth Cynic

    Atheist?  I  doubt it myself.  Would an atheist ever utter the words, “I really aspire to be a person of faith some day,” as is uttered at the 12.33 mark in this - 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATz6MS9YPU#t=12m32s  - Youtube video of an interview on C-Span?

    That hope, the association with Beck industries, the fulsome support of religion, her ideas that morals can only stem from religion etc., none of this sounds like something that any reasoning atheist would do.  She honestly looks like a marketing campaign of disinformation aimed at undermining atheists and their message.  She is photogenic and in terms of marketing / selling a message this is a useful quality.  She plays the respectful, quiet kind of atheist that never says boo to anything the religious get up to, the atheist whose existence is indistinguishable from their non-existence as the religious would like.   She attacks those who do not espouse the ideology of deference to faith in all things.  This to paint those who do oppose faiths excessive influence as irrational rageaholics addicted to rageahol and thus to be summarily dismissed.  There is I think a very strong chance that a conversion is planned, after they’ve sold the quiet atheist as much as they can a ‘prominent’ atheist can then see the light.  The good quiet ones come to god whilst the angry ones are presumably fueled by a hatred for god that forever blinds them.

  • Patterrssonn

    She seems to believe that god exists but she just doesn’t actually believe in him yet. Strange kind of atheist.

  • Ben Snell

    S. E. Cupp is a sheep in wolves’ clothing.

  • Bubba Tarandfeathered

    Here is a quote of her’s from Wikipedia

    Cupp describes herself as an atheist[1][3] who “really aspires to be a person of faith some day.”[4][5]
    ^ S. E. Cupp (2009-12-23). “Belief and nonbelief are not equal”. NY Daily News. “As an atheist myself, I like to think I adhere to the same Judeo-Christian values that most of religious America does.”^ S. E. Cupp (April 2010). Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity. Threshold Editions. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-4391-7316-9.
    “I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for fifteen years. … I
    believe … that Judeo-Christian values, religious tolerance, an
    objective press, the benevolence of Christianity, and civility and
    decency make for a better American democracy.”

    Let’s start a dislike campaign on youtube it almost half and half right now

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATz6MS9YPU#t=12m32s

    • Deven Kale

       

      Let’s start a dislike campaign on youtube it almost half and half right now

      I always thought these were just rumors, that nobody ever willfully went on a campaign to dislike a video just because they disagreed with the person or subject within it. I find it very sad to have this rumor confirmed, especially from someone in a group that I consider myself a member of…

      • Bubba Tarandfeathered

        Well Devin welcome to the real world. As much as you might not like it we are in a popularity contest against theists and their closeted supporters like S.E. Cupp. She has and still is misrepresenting our community. When she converts and she will, publicly with great fanfare, if we have not shown how she is falsely representing us; then her theist friends will win more points for their side. It’s time to take a stand against these charlatans.
        Yes it’s true that Gandhi might have peacefully protested without violence but many of his followers did not and the riots in the streets also swayed the British to leave. I hope you are not so naive to believe that we can simply change the world with words and good deeds. I’ll bet my eternal soul that there are quite a few fundamentalists out there that want to do horrible things to our community in the name of their gawd.

  • Robert Thille

    Even if I take her at her word, and she is an atheist, she has basically self-reported as dishonest and untrustworthy.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

    I see two options:
    1) She genuinely is not a Christian. She says she is an atheist because she seems to think that non-religious = atheist. Really, she believes in a higher power, but she doesn’t think she’s figured out what it is yet.
    2) She was discovered by Fox News as someone to represent how the opposition *should* behave. She is really a Christian, but she pretends to be an atheist. She shows that atheists really do feel emptiness in their lives and really want to believe, but in the meantime, they should suck up to Christians and should support Christian leadership because people who talk to deities know best.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Upton Sinclair.

  • Troy Truchon

    Did someone convince her atheist meant brunette? 

  • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

    When can we stop giving this person ink for her stupidity?

  • carlos maldonado

    I think Cupp is just a moron that doesn’t believe in gods. I’ve met a lot of them.

  • Rwlawoffice

    Her explanation of why she is an atheist is  the same definition most give here- there is not enough evidence for her to belief in God therefore she calls herself an atheist. If there was more evidence then she could change her mind.  Why does that work for you and you all are true atheists, but she is not? Is it because she doesn’t tow the company line by not believing that religious people aren’t crazy?  She is correct that the militant atheists are the most intolerant people there are.  It shows up here ll the time. It even shows up in Hemant’s post where he says “Someone who thinks talking to an invisible man in the sky is the best form of guidance does not have good judgment.” Automatically thinking that someone who prays is lacking good judgment is extremely intolerant. But as it shown here most times- tolerance only goes one direction.  You want it but you won’t give it in return. Another example is the gay pride event in Minnesota preventing someone from passing out Bibles. Freedom of speech, religion and expression only works among this group if you are in full agreement with the message.

    • Tainda


      Automatically thinking that someone who prays is lacking good judgment is extremely intolerant. But as it shown here most times- tolerance only goes one direction.  You want it but you won’t give it in return.”

      That line right there is one I hear soooo many times and I’m sick of hearing it.  I am probably the least militant atheist here as I think everyone should be allowed to believe or not as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.

      I can’t tell you how many times I have been laughed at, shunned or yelled at from religious people when I say I’m an atheist.  And don’t give me that crap about “well they aren’t true Christians then” because that’s exactly what you’re saying the atheists here are doing to Cupp.  Look in the mirror some time and see if you practice the tolerance that you speak.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

       why do Christians think tolerance means there should be a bias towards fairness?

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      Please note that Hemant said, “Someone who thinks talking to an invisible man in the sky is the best form of guidance does not have good judgment” (emphasis mine). That’s not an intolerant statement; that’s a rational statement.

      • Rwlawoffice

         Hemant can of course tell us what he meant by that statement but I stand by my interpretation. 

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        As Lawrence Krauss said (paraphrased): “If you’re choking, I can perform a Heimlich on you, or I can pray”

        Compared to Rick Santorum saying (again, slight paraphrase, but I’m honestly making it as close as I can remember, and it’s very close) “[the secular left] hates us because our position is one of reason, common sense, and divine revelation”.

        or Peter Boghossian (again, in this case a loose paraphrase) “Are there better and worse ways to get information?  If I need to know the size of my door, I could use a tape measure, or I could ask my dog”

        If prayer is your last resort, fine.  If prayer calms you down and makes you feel better, fine.  If prayer is your version of ‘sleep on it’, find.  But anyone who honestly thinks they’re going to get a better answer from God, by praying, than pretty much any other method available, does not have good judgement.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      I don’t think it’s intolerant to say it’s bad judgment if you’re putting all your eggs in the God Basket.  I would much rather have someone who trusts experts in the field instead of their faith doctrines.  If you listen to experts *and* ask god and then do what the experts suggest, I can deal with that, even if I think it was a silly middle step.

      I’ve voted for religious presidents in the past, and I’m sure I’ll be doing it again in the future.

      Now, let’s hear some Christians say that about atheists :)

      • Rwlawoffice

         This explanation I think proves my point.  It appears that anyone who prays and makes a decision in opposition to advice from experts is automatically viewed as having bad judgment. It doesn’t take into account the religious person’s decision making skills that include prayer, despite the advice given by experts.

        • 3lemenope

          I think it hinges on how much normative force you’re willing to give the assessment that someone is doing something, in one’s opinion, “improperly”. Lots of people do stuff all the time in a way that seems to me silly; duplications of effort, taking the long way round, actually counterproductive steps, and so forth. Most people have that experience of frustrations with the ways other people do things. Undoubtedly many people think that about the way I do things. 

          The question becomes, when is the judgement that someone is adding what seems to another to be a “silly middle step” be taken as more than just a difference of opinion that adds to nothing more than intermittent irritation? When should it be read as an actual moral failing? I don’t get that from Mr. Mehta’s description but it’s a plausible reading.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          Proves what point, that we think people who choose prayer as a useful way to gain information don’t have good judgement?

          Ya, nobody’s denying that.  If that’s ‘intolerant’, then call it hating the sin but loving the sinner.

          But tell me, in your opinion, are all appeals to divine revelation equally useful?  If say a medical doctor “throws bones” and “talks to ancestors”, to figure out what is ailing a patient, is that reasonable?  What about astrologers and palm readers and tea leaf readers?  Are you as tolerant of them as you wish us to be of people who pray for an answer?

          • Rwlawoffice

             Actually, it is saying, hate the sin and call the sinner one with bad judgment.  Not quite the same thing as loving the sinner.

            As for your question, you are confusing my belief in prayer with your notion that your belief that those that do are expressing bad judgment is somehow showing tolerance.  I won’t bite on that flawed notion.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              I’m ready to say I’m intolerant of prayers if you’re ready to say you’re intolerant of tea leaf readers.  That’s all.  I don’t see how you can possibly expect one version of divine revelation to be treated any differently than any others.  The fact that (I suspect, I could very well be wrong) you expect a respect/tolerance that you won’t give out is the hypocrisy I’m pointing out.  But again, I could be mistaking you, and maybe you do feel tea leaf reading is as much part of good judgment as prayer.  

              If so, I apologize and withdraw my charge.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 I am not intolerant of other people based upon their beliefs.  The fact that you belief that there is no God and that pray is ineffective, does not make me intolerant of you, nor do I automatically think that you have bad judgment. 

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  You’re still not addressing any form of divine revelation besides prayer, but if you really are not intolerant of other people based on their beliefs, then I’ll have to concede that you’re more tolerant than I am.

                  Keep in mind, I’m sure we could name somethings that should not be tolerated, but we’re probably  hitting column death by now, if viewed from the root.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          You pray to an imaginary friend for advice and expect to be considered wise?

          Go ahead and call me intolerant for not being superstitious.

          You want to have your magical beliefs respected and you want to condemn me for being rational. Why should I respect that?

          We expect children to grow out of those beliefs. We should not encourage maintaining these beliefs as adults.

          I spend my time trying to convince doctors that believing in a treatment is not enough. We need evidence that the treatment is both efficacious and not harmful.

          It does not help that people praise God when a doctor heals someone, but blame the doctor for the bad outcomes. 

          This irrationality belief in magic kills patients. This deserves no respect. 

          People deserve respect.

          Beliefs do not deserve respect. 

          .

          • Rwlawoffice

            I agree with you that people deserve respect. That is why I give you respect even though I disagree with some of your beliefs. What is evident in your posts as well as many others here is that this respect only goes one way. You automatically dismiss Christians based upon their beliefs. You automatically dismiss cupp based upon what she believes about people of faith and her fellow atheists. If you don’t think that is happening you need to read what you have posted. For example automatically insulting me by saying because I pray I am therefore not wise. At the same time you worship at the alter of so called rationality as if atheists are the only ones who value evidence and rational thinking. I would tell you that faith in God is in my opinion very rational and based upon evidence. The fact that you disagree and see it different than Christians doesn’t make you anymore rational. It just makes you think you are.

            • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

              You are presenting prayer as wise? Please demonstrate that prayer is an effective way to obtain information or wisdom.

              I was criticizing your beliefs. If you are insulted, try some beliefs that are more rational.

              Don’t expect to believe in magic and have adults pretend that holding on to these beliefs is wise.

              Provide objective evidence that there is a God.

              Demonstrate your rationality and stop complaining that pointing out your irrationality makes you feel insulted. 

              I do not automatically dismiss Christians based on their beliefs. 

              I know plenty of wise Christians, but they do not tell me that they treat patients based on prayer. They do live in the real world and have to treat patients with real ethics.

              I do dismiss Christian claims that are based on belief and not supported by objective evidence.

              .

  • LesterBallard

    S.E. Cupp is the Clayton Bigsby of atheism.

  • LesterBallard

    Let’s start a pool on what kind of Christianity she’ll convert to when she makes her announcement; Catholicism; some branch of fundie evangelicalism; Eastern Orthodox; Mormonism?

  • http://etratio.blogspot.com/ linford86

    What I really want to sees S.E. Cupp defend the idea that she’s an atheist. Has she ever made a statement like “I’m an atheist because…..”  or “To me, being an atheist means…..”

    I’m convinced that she’s an atheist. But I’m also not convinced that she’s using that word the same way that the rest of us use it.

  • Marco

    Hopefully soon, S.E. Cupp will convert to some flavor of Christianity so her puppeteers  will be able to add a “Avowed atheist converts to Jesus” story and after that she will become a mouthpiece for the god of the bible while being able to say “I was once an atheist”. But at least we won’t have to suffer her anymore.

    At the same time, we have to be careful how we characterize her. I’d say that ignoring her (aside from correcting whatever misconception she may have) would be the best policy. She crazy. 

  • thesauros

    I wonder what percentage of atheists would vote for someone who declared h/herself to be an atheist, for that reason – and place that person’s policies and plans for the nation / world second.

  • T-Rex

    Please stop referring to this babbling attention whore as an atheist. She’s an atheist like Jesus was the son of a supernatural being and a virgin teenager.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LRQMOHABUEJOP5RWF3FJOMPCHQ CarlS

    S.E. Cupp aspires to be a dumber version of Ann Coulter. I don’t know why anyone pays any attention to her.

  • http://twitter.com/porlob Patrick Orlob

    Not to pull a Scottsman here, but are we all convinced Cupp really IS an atheist, or is she just using it to have an “interesting” perspective in order to get booked on more cable news talking-head shows?

  • Edmond

    I’m sorry, did she really say “religion keeps a person who is endowed with so much power honest”???

    WHAT country does she live in?

  • Dan Dorfman

    An atheist president should be cheered on by the religious. To them, here’s a person who has given up their place in paradise in order to devote their complete attention to the maintenance and prosperity of the country that they live in in their mortal lifespan.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/CKQEXWUDO4UDPBRXPYVVIUOLFI Matt P

     “You keep using that word (atheist). I do not think it
    means, what you think it means.”

  • Robert Rosener

    I don’t believe for a second that Cupp is an atheist.  She is the child of an evangelical Christian
    family, and is just saying she does not believe in an imaginary friend as a beard for her true
    feelings.  Watch, one of these days she will come out, say she has seen the error of her ways,
    and that she now recognizes Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior just like all the other crazies.

    Saying they are, or were,  a non-believer is a nothing more than a cynical tactic often used by proselytizers of wacko Christianity.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      Shill Evangelist Cupp?

      Step right up and watch the power of God heal this atheist, live on FOX News.

      .

  • http://twitter.com/billburcham Bill Burcham

    To explore the anti-Poe theory, I looked for articles Cupps had written for the Cornell Daily Sun. That site (cornellsun.com) is down but I noticed an article from a decade ago that the Cornell Library was digitizing back issues. I think we are interested in about 1995-2000.

    There’s this: http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/newscornell?a=d&cl=CL2&sp=CDS but it only goes through 1989 and there’s this: http://cornell.worldcat.org/title/cornell-daily-sun/oclc/232117810?referer=di&ht=edition  but I can’t get at any actual content.

    I smell a conspiracy ;-)

  • bhanu korremula

    She is a conservative commentator, fox news, gb TV is where she probably gets her pay check from. Its obvious she is going to say the right words to keep money flowing that’s how the game is played.

  • jose

    Maher tried to make sense off her one day and failed. It went like this:

    - You’re an atheist.
    - Yes.
    - In your opinion there is no God.
    - Yes.
    - So you believe people who believe in God are deluded.
    - No I don’t.
    - But-
    - I don’t believe but I’m not like MAD at God y’know.
    - But if you don’t believe, and they do believe-
    - ATHEISTS ARE BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD
    - …

  • Keulan

    I’m still not convinced she’s really an atheist. She comes across as a Christian pretending to be an atheist to me.

  • Bubba Tarandfeathered

    http://www.foxnews.com/about/terms-of-use/

    “FOX News furnishes the Site and the FOX News Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment…”

    The FOX News Services are provided “AS – IS” and “as available” and FOX
    News does not guarantee or promise any specific results from use of the
    FOX News Services. FOX News expressly disclaims any warranties and
    conditions of any kind, whether express or implied, including but not
    limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
    particular purpose and non – infringement. In particular, FOX News makes
    no warranty that your use of the FOX News Services will be
    uninterrupted, timely, secure or error – free or that any information
    obtained by you on, through or in connection with the FOX News Services
    or Third Party Services will be accurate or reliable.

    FOX News makes
    no warranty that…that any information
    obtained by you…will be accurate or reliable.

  • http://twitter.com/nopaniers Chucky

    I find all these posts declaring that Cupp isn’t an atheist kind of… strange. If someone doesn’t believe in God or gods they are an atheist. It seems that some people think if someone has conservative American politics they’re not a true atheist (TM).

    Can I suggest a simple idea: Vote for the person with the best policies. We (Australia) are a majority Christian country, and my electorate has an atheist member, who is also the prime minister here. Christians voted her in. Turns out she actually implemented bad policies, and has become very unpopular, so, most likely she will be voted out. Neither of those have anything to do with her religious beliefs – she simply did a bad job.

    What both Cupp and Hermat are telling you is basic religious discrimination. Cupp doesn’t want to vote for atheists, and Hermat doesn’t want you to vote for Christians. Either way, discrimination on religious grounds just isn’t a good look. It’s not a good look if a preacher says it about Mormons, if it comes from Cupp about atheists, or if Hermat Mehta says it about Christians.

    • Darth Cynic

      “It seems that some people think if someone has conservative American politics they’re not a true atheist (TM).”

      Some might hold that but I don’t think that’s the case here, of course you can be an atheist and subscribe to ideologies across almost the entire political spectrum including conservative positions, however, that’s not why anyone is questioning whether she is an atheist or not.  This isn’t about who to vote for but yet another example of Cupp’s loathing of what she claims to be, something she does so often whilst working for a far right loon who doesn’t like atheists unless they’re unobtrusive, as well as Cupp aspiring to be a person of faith one day as though they know god is out there they just have to find it.  That’s why her claim is questioned and plausibly viewed as an insincere and ongoing marketing stunt.

      “What both Cupp and Hermat are telling you is basic religious discrimination. Cupp doesn’t want to vote for atheists, and Hermat doesn’t want you to vote for Christians.”

      I’m sorry but where exactly does Hemant tell us not to vote for Christians?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      I never said “Don’t vote for Christians.” I’ve voted for Christians for many years. I just want them to separate church from state.

      S.E. Cupp said that she would never vote for an atheist.

  • http://profiles.google.com/leskern Les Kern

    She will have her Eureka Moment, and be born again maybe even on live TV because know what? It’s going to be her shtick, her ticket to the big time.
    Copy and paste this for future reference.

  • http://twitter.com/DanTresOmi Peoples Rodriguez

    I notice that S.E. Cupp definitely makes the rounds on news talk shows. She usually says large amounts of things that I disagree with as an atheist while she is entitled to her opinion, I think that networks book her because she brings ratings. I see her niche though. She is one of those “atheists” who make “theists” feel better instead of one of us atheists who are “arrogant” and think we are superior to everyone. I get it. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/D5JIK7FDNJHRYGGJ4HG5BXZYZI Olivia

    I think she uses her “atheism” – and I, in no way believe she is an atheist,  to give herself a little credibility. She’s just trying to distinguish herself from the religious fundamentalists that she constantly defends. This really needs to be exposed.

  • Rwlawoffice

    Whenever I get into a discussion on this site about the definition of atheism I am consistently told that it simply means not believing in God, nothing more.  Apparently that is incorrect. By virtue of these comments  it appears that to be an atheist you must not believe in God and be happy about it, because if you wish you had belief, than you aren’t really an atheist.  I guess that means that if you are gay and wish you were straight, you really aren’t gay.  If you are overweight and wish you were skinny, you really are skinny. If you are short and really wish you were tall, you are tall.  

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      I agree that no matter how much we shake our heads, we really have no option other than to take someone’s word for it.

      But imagine someone claiming to be a Christian, and saying “Christians are weak minded because they need God to tell them right from wrong”  Or “I’d never vote for a Christian because they’ll do whatever they want and claim it was God’s will” Or “Christians only do charity to buy favor with God”.

      She’s not only talking stupid incorrect ignorant trash, but since she’s doing it from a position of public figure atheist, she’s further reinforcing those incorrect stigmas in people who don’t think they know any atheists.

      It’s bad enough when a bunch of us random blog voices trash you.  It would be something else if Rick Warren and Joel Osteen starting talking trash about not only other Christians, but the entire concept of Christianity.

      • Rwlawoffice

         From previous discussions here I did not believe there was a concept to atheism beyond a lack of belief in God.  There is no set of beliefs, it is not a movement, it is not a religion, etc..

          It appears that when it suits a purpose such as arguing that atheism cannot cause anything negative to occur because someone can’t act in the name of atheism, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief.

        But when it fits another purpose, such as disagreeing with Cupp , atheism is so much more. To be a true atheist, you must have more than non belief, you must have got there with rational thinking, you must not loath it, you must not wish you had faith. 

        All of this seems self serving looking from the outside and really a long way to avoid the no true Scotsman argument that us Christians get all of the time when a professed Christian does not live up to the tenets of the faith.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          I wouldn’t put it quite so strongly as ”
          you must not loath [faith]“, but I am probably self serving in that assessment :-) But I think in general I agree.  There is some ‘convenience’ going on.

          FWIW last year PZ Myers gave an infamous talk “I hate dictionary atheists” that railed against people who kept trumpeting the “atheism is a lack of belief in gods and that’s fucking all!!!!” crowd.  He got a lot of push back.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          I do not have a problem with Christians, Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious people in politics – as long as they do not try to use their political power to impose their religion. This is America and that is one of the important rights that many of our Founding Fathers insisted on. 

          Most of our early presidents were deists, not Christians. Conservatism did not used to mean religious fundamentalism. 

          Barry Goldwater warned of this - 

          On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
          I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
          And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”

          I used to be a Conservative, but how can I vote for a party that wishes to take my Constitutional rights away?

          I am not a Liberal. There is little economic sense in their policies. Even the Libertarians have Ron Paul saying that the First Amendment means we should allow the States to be as theocratic as the voters will allow. 

          The American political choices have become an embarrassing reality TV show, where we cast the most extreme insults at those who disagree with us. 

          If God wants to have somebody elected, a miracle would do it.

          The lack of a miracle supporting the religious candidates appears to be a sign from God that we should not vote for these frauds.

          If Jesus were real, is there any reason he would not give these religious candidates the same treatment as the money changers in the Temple?

          .

          • Rwlawoffice

             I don’t disagree with most of your post.  I do believe that America was founded on religious freedom for all religions.  Unfortunately, religious liberties are under attack in this country under the guise of tolerance and diversity.  consequently, in order to protect those freedoms, religious people need to become more involved politically.

            As far as Jesus handling the political candidates the same as the money changers if they are using religion for their own gain and to pursue their own interests just like the money changers were using the temple for theirs, and not to bring glory to God, then yes, he would most likely treat them the same.

            • Kodie

              Unfortunately, religious liberties are under attack in this country under the guise of tolerance and diversity.

              Like which ones, in what way. Name one, name several.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 The right to not rent a room in a bed and breakfast to a homosexual couple based upon religious grounds without getting fined when they were not fined fro also not renting a room to an unmarried heterosexual couple, the right not perform photography work at a civil union ceremony because of religious beliefs without getting fined, the right to refer a patient to another counselor when the patient was asking for advice on a same sex relationship that went against the counselor’s religious conscience without being removed from the program one semester before graduation, the right to bring religious materials when visiting a patient at Walter Reed hospital being taken away (this one has been changed after the public outcry), the right for a religious institution to not pay for birth control that goes against their religion, the right of a christian legal society to have members join and adhere to a statement of faith, the right of a pastor to pass out Bibles at a Gay Pride event in Minneapolis being prevented by the city council, the right of a student to say a prayer during her own graduation speech, trying to dictate the content of an invocation at city council meetings to make it more secular which is not a requirement of the constitution, speech codes at universities that prohibit the passing out of Bibles that call homosexuality a sin.  All of these are actual cases that have occurred in this country and are just a limited set of examples.

                 Internationally- a priest in Sweden being arrested from giving a sermon on Romans chapter 1, a woman in Britain being fired for wearing a small cross necklace.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Your British woman case (unless you’re thinking of something else) is factually incorrect.  The two women weren’t fined.  They lost their jobs 

                  The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols.

                  The crux of the matter is that the British government refused to back the women, saying essentially that wearing a cross is not a religious requirement of Christianity.  That is, you can not wear a cross, and nobody will think you’re any less Christian.  If you’re a Sikh e.g., you have to wear a turban (for men).

                  It is going to the European Court, so it’s not over yet.

                  Facts aside, I can’t see how their own display of religion affects anyone in any way at all, so it’s patently unjust to prohibit it.  Considering that even in the UK the majority are Christians, you’d have to assume that your nurse is a Christian anyway, weather s/he wears a cross or not.

                  But if I’m a Muslim driving inspector, can I refuse all female applicants?

                • Rwlawoffice

                   You are correct they were fired.  The fined was a typo on my part.  As for your question about a Muslim driving inspector, if you are talking about a Muslim in America, the employer would have to make a reasonable accommodation for that person’s religious beliefs which could include giving him the male applicants and allowing others to handle the female applicants. 

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  the right for a religious institution to not pay for birth control that goes against their religion,

                  If you are going to hire people, you do not get to use insurance coverage to discriminate against employees.

                  These are not rights, they are the undeserved privileges that have been abused by the majority because they are the majority. They are no more ethical than Jim Crow laws.

                  -

                  the right of a christian legal society to have members join and adhere to a statement of faith,

                  Is it a legal society or a religious organization? This appears to be just another example of people trying to hide their discrimination behind religion.

                  Religion is not a free pass to be immoral.

                  -

                  the right of a pastor to pass out Bibles at a Gay Pride event in Minneapolis being prevented by the city council, 

                  Interfering with an event that has a permit is generally illegal, regardless of the religious excuse. If the pastor applied for a permit and the city council denied a permit because they felt that the preaching would be disruptive, that is one of the things they are able to consider when granting permits. If a gay rights group had been similarly banned from a counter-demonstration, that would have been just as legal.

                  -

                  speech codes at universities that prohibit the passing out of Bibles that call homosexuality a sin.  

                  I agree that the speech codes at universities are sometimes unfair, but to everyone. Religion is not special, except in the undeserved respect that so many people give to religion.

                  A God who won’t do anything about this doesn’t care, doesn’t know, or doesn’t have the power to do anything. They all result in the same conclusion. 

                  Either your God is impotent or your God disagrees with you.

                  You should petition your God for an answer.

                  -

                  the right of a student to say a prayer during her own graduation speech,

                  If the student wants to use the authority to speak, that is provided by the school, there will always be limitations.

                  Why do people so often pretend that their religion is some sort of Get out of Responsibility card that allows them to do whatever they want in public?

                  -

                  trying to dictate the content of an invocation at city council meetings to make it more secular which is not a requirement of the constitution,

                  The Constitution requires that government not be involved in religion. 

                  You are exempt from billions of dollars of taxes, so stop asking for continuation of unfair favoritism. 

                  .

                • Rwlawoffice

                   As i said in my last post, the mere thought that you view the right to express religion as an undeserved privilege instead of as a right guaranteed by the constitution shows just how far the attack on religious liberties has gone.  Try to justify these attacks all you want but the overall principal that is being attacked is the right to exercise your religious beliefs.

                  And you are wrong, religion is “special”.  It is treated as such in the constitution and recognized as a right. It is more than just the right to worship within a church. It is the right to live your religious tenets.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  As i said in my last post, the mere thought that you view the right to express religion as an undeserved privilege instead of as a right guaranteed by the constitution shows just how far the attack on religious liberties has gone.  Try to justify these attacks all you want but the overall principal that is being attacked is the right to exercise your religious beliefs.

                  You do not have a right to use the government to assist you in preaching.

                  You may feel that this is unfair, but the Founding Fathers wrote thee First Amendment to protect the ability of the people to practice whatever religion they wanted, if they wanted tgo practice a religion and to keep the government out of the business of endorsing any religion.

                  Freedom means no favoritism toward a majority religion, no favoritism toward a minority religion, and no requirement for any religion.

                  Individuals decide and the government has absolutely no position on relgion.

                  No temples endorsing religion, no prayers endorsed by government, no sign of any favoritism toward any religion. 

                  Religion is kept out of government and government is kept out of religion, no matter how much better religion would be if it were controlled by the IRS.

                  -

                  And you are wrong, religion is “special”.  It is treated as such in the constitution and recognized as a right. It is more than just the right to worship within a church. It is the right to live your religious tenets.

                  You can live your religious tenets as much as you like, as long as you do not try to impose them on others. 

                  The right is, as I described above, a right to have government remain indifferent to the religion you practice on your own, without any aid (other than the billions of dollars of tax breaks) from the government.

                  .

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  the right for a religious institution to not pay for birth control that goes against their religion,

                  If you are going to hire people, you do not get to use insurance coverage to discriminate against employees.

                  These are not rights, they are the undeserved privileges that have been abused by the majority because they are the majority. They are no more ethical than Jim Crow laws.

                  -

                  the right of a christian legal society to have members join and adhere to a statement of faith,

                  Is it a legal society or a religious organization? This appears to be just another example of people trying to hide their discrimination behind religion.

                  Religion is not a free pass to be immoral.

                  -

                  the right of a pastor to pass out Bibles at a Gay Pride event in Minneapolis being prevented by the city council, 

                  Interfering with an event that has a permit is generally illegal, regardless of the religious excuse. If the pastor applied for a permit and the city council denied a permit because they felt that the preaching would be disruptive, that is one of the things they are able to consider when granting permits. If a gay rights group had been similarly banned from a counter-demonstration, that would have been just as legal.

                  -

                  speech codes at universities that prohibit the passing out of Bibles that call homosexuality a sin.  

                  I agree that the speech codes at universities are sometimes unfair, but to everyone. Religion is not special, except in the undeserved respect that so many people give to religion.

                  A God who won’t do anything about this doesn’t care, doesn’t know, or doesn’t have the power to do anything. They all result in the same conclusion. 

                  Either your God is impotent or your God disagrees with you.

                  You should petition your God for an answer.

                  -

                  the right of a student to say a prayer during her own graduation speech,

                  If the student wants to use the authority to speak, that is provided by the school, there will always be limitations.

                  Why do people so often pretend that their religion is some sort of Get out of Responsibility card that allows them to do whatever they want in public?

                  -

                  trying to dictate the content of an invocation at city council meetings to make it more secular which is not a requirement of the constitution,

                  The Constitution requires that government not be involved in religion. 

                  You are exempt from billions of dollars of taxes, so stop asking for continuation of unfair favoritism. 

                  .

            • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

              One of the problems is that we do not point out the irrationality of superstitions. 

              We should be equally critical of the lack of logic in assuming that what we don’t know is some sort of proof of God.

              Jesus gave up all of his possessions and gave up his life to preach. The current preachers get rich and famous, but still ask for more. If Jesus were alive, I would not expect him to make any exceptions for any of the rich and famous preachers. Our acceptance of the rich and famous preachers is just another example of the moral relativism of religion.

              Religious liberties are not under attack, only the undeserved privileges the majority have been scaled back. There is a tremendous difference.

              .

              • Rwlawoffice

                Correction- Jesus gave up his life to save the world from their sins, to reconcile belivers with God and to grant them eternal life.

                As for rich and famous preachers, Jesus was not against rich people, he was against people building up wealth on earth for wealth sake.  Some rich and famous preachers are doing things the way Jesus would approve, like Billy Graham, Max Lucado and Rick Warren while others are not, like Jimmy Swaggert. 

                Finally, the very idea that you would describe the removal of religious liberties as cutting back privileges proves my point. We have always had the right to express our religion in this country.  Only now is that being viewed as a privilege instead of a right.  Imagine if that same thought process was applied to freedom of speech. Like it or not, in America we are a religious people that value the right to express our religion.

                • Deven Kale

                   Your right to express your freedom of religion stops where it infringes on another persons right to express theirs.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  I agree. Religious expression goes for all religions not just Christianity.

                • Deven Kale

                  I’m calling you out as a liar. If you really believed that way, you wouldn’t be making the complaints that you’re making.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  I must admit I don’t follow. My complaint is that religious freedoms are under attack. Not just that Christian religion is under attack. It just so happens that as the majority religion in the country attacks are mostly against Christians but the right belongs to all relgious people.

                • Deven Kale

                   “I must admit I don’t follow.”

                  And yet it has been explained to you numerous times, on numerous posts, over many weeks. The fact that you still refuse to accept that you’re wrong (or you’re blatantly dishonest, which I’m starting to think more likely), and your willful ignorance on the real subject speaks volumes about your character.

                  Let me put it this way: your arguments seem to stem from an assumption that Christians should be able to inflict their beliefs on whomever they wish simply by virtue of them owning a business. This is unconstitutional, and yet you refuse to understand it (or willfully ignore it). But, in order to make yourself sound better, you pretend that you’d let someone of any other religion do the same even though you really wouldn’t, which is quite obvious by your martyr-like statements.

                  That’s why I call you a liar.

                • Deven Kale

                   “I must admit I don’t follow.”

                  And yet it has been explained to you numerous times, on numerous posts, over many weeks. The fact that you still refuse to accept that you’re wrong (or you’re blatantly dishonest, which I’m starting to think more likely), and your willful ignorance on the real subject speaks volumes about your character.

                  Let me put it this way: your arguments seem to stem from an assumption that Christians should be able to inflict their beliefs on whomever they wish simply by virtue of them owning a business. This is unconstitutional, and yet you refuse to understand it (or willfully ignore it). But, in order to make yourself sound better, you pretend that you’d let someone of any other religion do the same even though you really wouldn’t, which is quite obvious by your martyr-like statements.

                  That’s why I call you a liar.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  We can’t tell if you really do not follow or you are just pretendingto be oblivious to the way your desires for your religion to be a part of government are at the expense of the rights of others.

                  If you claim that you have God-givenrights, that are being infringed upon,you should take them up with God. 

                  Your Constitutional right to have government take no interest in your religion, except to protect you from religious coercion is the only role of government.

                  The government is not there to assistyou in your religious coercion of others.

                  .

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  Correction- Jesus gave up his life to save the world from their sins, to reconcile belivers with God and to grant them eternal life.

                  Whether he was preaching or granting eternal life depends on whether you are religious. Please provide objective proof that he did anything more than preach.

                  -

                  As for rich and famous preachers, Jesus was not against rich people, he was against people building up wealth on earth for wealth sake.  Some rich and famous preachers are doing things the way Jesus would approve, like Billy Graham, Max Lucado and Rick Warren while others are not, like Jimmy Swaggert.

                  Yet, he only attacked the hypocrites making money off of religion. 

                  I specifically meant to include all of the preachers getting rich off of the gullible. 

                  How much property did Jesus own?

                  How much did he have in the bank?

                  How much did he ask for beyond what he needed to live?

                  How much did he give away?

                  Assuming he ever existed, Jesus is reported to have had no possessions other than what he carried with him.

                  People claiming to be carrying on his work, while making a lot of money are demonstrating the many ways that religious people will fall for anything.

                  -

                  Finally, the very idea that you would describe the removal of religious liberties as cutting back privileges proves my point. We have always had the right to express our religion in this country.  Only now is that being viewed as a privilege instead of a right.  Imagine if that same thought process was applied to freedom of speech. Like it or not, in America we are a religious people that value the right to express our religion.

                  You have the right to express your beliefs on your own.

                  When you try to get the government to assist you in preaching, you are violating the Constitution. 

                  “Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” James Madison.

                  “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.” John Adams.

                  You feel the need to use the government to assist you in preaching. The rules of the government preclude you from doing so.

                  The Founding Fathers did this on purpose.

                  .

                • Rwlawoffice

                  I take Jesus at his word as to his purpose in coming here. You can ask for more evidence than that if you want

                  You are very mistaken on the law and the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The government cannot infringe on that right. Protecting that right from governmental instrsusion is all I ask for from government. I have the right to express these beliefs in public as well as in private. I even have the right to express them in governmental meetings.

                  As for the rich. Find the verses where Jesus said wealth is bad. You won’t find them. What you will find is jesus saying that earthly riches will get you nothing and that you are to live for Christ and the glory of god.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  I take Jesus at his word as to his purpose in coming here. You can ask for more evidence than that if you want

                  We only have what others have written about him. We don’t even know if he was real.

                  -

                  You are very mistaken on the law and the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The government cannot infringe on that right. Protecting that right from governmental instrsusion is all I ask for from government. I have the right to express these beliefs in public as well as in private. I even have the right to express them in governmental meetings.

                  Then I have the right to engage in whatever kind of similar religious ceremony in government, too.

                  What you are asking for special favors that you have undeservedly become accustomed to.

                  -

                  As for the rich. Find the verses where Jesus said wealth is bad. You won’t find them. What you will find is jesus saying that earthly riches will get you nothing and that you are to live for Christ and the glory of god.

                  Try reading what I wrote. I wrote that the life described is one of a complete absence of interest in money and property. 

                  He did not encourage people to get rich selling religion, but you feel the need to defend those who get rich off of their followers. 

                  Did Jesus exist? 

                  I don’t care.

                  Did the Founding Fathers want us to worship Jesus?

                  Of course not.

                  .

        • 3lemenope

           From previous discussions here I did not believe there was a concept to atheism beyond a lack of belief in God.  There is no set of beliefs, it is not a movement, it is not a religion, etc….
          It’s the difference between atheism as a private metaphysical opinion and atheism as a sociological grouping. They don’t map on to each other perfectly. At the basic level, atheism is simply a lack of belief in all gods, a belief that the category is an empty set. That position itself entails next to nothing else. However, in places where atheism is rather the exception culturally, atheism is also a sociological phenomena, a grouping around a common feature. In that context, there are norms and deviations from the norm. S. E. Cupp’s stated beliefs deviate rather strongly from the norm, thus it would be inappropriate to map those beliefs back onto the sociological category in order to draw conclusions about it.

          It bears saying that atheism as a sociological group is a great deal smaller, numerically, than atheism as a metaphysical position. Most atheists, I’d be willing to bet (contra P. Z. Myers), are actually apatheists. They don’t organize their identity around their atheism because they just don’t care that much about it, intellectually or existentially. Online communities have self-selection pressure in favor of people who positively identify as atheists, who care about issues which effect atheists in a sociological way. Thus, those communities are going to have legitimate concern about a person like Cupp undermining their community. It doesn’t mean that they have authority of any sort to cast her out of atheism, or anything like that, but they can signal a concern that a person is placing the sociological group in a bad and, to the outside world, confusing light.

    • Darth Cynic

      “I guess that means that if you are gay and wish you were straight, you really aren’t gay.  If you are overweight and wish you were skinny, you really are skinny. If you are short and really wish you were tall, you are tall.”

      Not so, the former and the latter are intrinsic properties of a person that cannot be altered, you do not choose to be either, you are or you are not.  Now obesity does have an element of choice involved but being overweight is still a physical property not an articulated philosophy.  You can of course wish you were slimmer but you know there is a specific course of physical action to get there; getting slimmer btw is not antithetical to being overweight it’s just an opposite.

      It is possible to be any of the above or atheist and wish to be the other because it seems like life might be easier that way, but wishing does not confer the attribute wished for.  I’m poor and wishing I had more money does not make me rich, it is a wish but I’m also fully cognisant of the reality of my situation and know that’s not the case.  However, Cupp did not use the term ‘wish’ in the interview I and others linked to above, she used the term ‘aspire’ and that is something entirely different, used to articulate a longing or aim for something often considered of great value.

      Now, an atheist is simply an individual who thinks – the term ‘believe’ has connotations of doing so on a personal whim – deities of any description do not exist, it does not entail any further stipulations of personal philosophy though it is often synonomous with some.  However, there must or at least should be a reason for arriving at a conclusion and the rational reason for arriving at atheism is that the “evidence” proffered by the worlds religions hold no water, and that there is no credible evidence to support the existence of any deity of any description.  To merely claim not to believe without any reason for doing so is inherently irrational and as far as I’d be concerned randomly declaring to be an atheist does not actually make you an atheist, just something you’ve claimed.
      “I’m Christian.”
      “Why?”
      “Why?  No reason, just because I guess.”
      “Do you believe in Jesus or think he even existed?”
      “No.”
      “Then you’re not a Christian.”
      So we can see how that works.  No thinking atheist can reasonably aspire to become faithful because it’s antithetical to why they identify as atheist in the first place.  They may find religion / god because they think they found reasonable evidence for that but they would never aspire to jettison reason at a whim and just believe for its own sake.  So when Cupp utters such statements in addition to the other salient points known about her, then we have very reasonable grounds to question whether she is actually atheist beyond her claims to be one, not only that but we can also be reasonably suspect of ulterior motives in this unsupported claim of atheism.  Given that she is a public figure ostensibly representing atheism, I think we can expect more than her claim to be one and I’ve not seen that.

      • Rwlawoffice

         I may have misheard it when I viewed the video tape linked to the post, but I recall her saying that she is an atheist because there is not enough evidence for her to believe. So this seems to be the reason she is an atheist.  It is clear from what she said that she wishes she could believe. But I will be honest and say I do not understand how her desire to be a person of faith diminishes her atheism now. 

        I will venture to guess that the atheists here have a reason to doubt her atheism because of her admiration for people of faith and her conservative political stance and not because she doesn’t fit the definition.

        • Deven Kale

          In my case, you are partially right. A person who cares about evidence doesn’t admire somebody who believes something without it. A person who cares about evidence doesn’t look forward to someday believing something for which they don’t see enough evidence now. A person who cares about evidence doesn’t hate others who also care about evidence.

          It’s not just her admiration of people of faith and conservative political stance. In fact, I know absolutely nothing of her political views other than she wouldn’t vote for an atheist. The primary reason that I don’t believe Cupp is an atheist is because so many of her statements are so blatantly contradictory. Along the lines of what Rich said, it’s like a Christian stating they would never vote for a Christian, or admire the atheists because they don’t get to use “God” as an excuse to do evil, or hope that one day they could finally be an atheist themselves but they just can’t yet. It just doesn’t make any sense.

        • Darth Cynic

          “It is clear from what she said that she wishes she could believe.”

          She explicitly uses the term ‘aspire’, I’ll go from that and not infer the term ‘wish’ into it and as I’ve pointed out ‘aspire’ is something completely different.  So I’ll not entertain any other insistence on reading ‘wish’ between the lines.

          “But I will be honest and say I do not understand how her desire to be a person of faith diminishes her atheism now.”

          If any religious notable like Robertson were to say that they aspired to be a person of unbelief you can be certain that their followers would consider that persons faith most diminished and likely abandon them in droves.  It would be diminished because they are signalling doubt in their position, as if they are not convinced of it and potentially just counting time.  It’s like they’re saying they don’t believe what they profess to and just await an excuse to change.

          “I will venture to guess that the atheists here have a reason to doubt her atheism [...] because she doesn’t fit the definition.”

          No need to venture, I think it’s been made pretty clear why her claimed atheism is questioned and it is not because she admires people of faith or her conservative politics.  Once again, it is because she aspires to something she, by virtue of adhering to reason and evidence, should know is an intrinsically flawed and evidenceless method of evaluating the world, that being faith.  No one who believes in reason and evidence hopes to go to a state of credulously believing whatever fantasy sounds most pleasing to their ears.  It is also because: she is associated with Beck industries and Beck doesn’t eactly care for the unbeliever; she is intolerant of atheists; she acts to keep atheists marginalised and silent; she thinks morality stems from religion and will raise her children in religion; she dances away from the implicit connotations of atheism, if there’s no evidence for deities then those who believe in them must be deluded; she plays the nice quiet unobtrusive atheist that the religious like, promotes this and expects every other atheist to do likewise.  That’s why, not merely because she ‘aspires’ to faith but because nothing she does seems particularly applicable to an actual atheist and more like the fantasy atheist the religious extremist would tolerate; mainly because they’d be completely unaware there were any atheists what with them being all quiet and indistinguishable.

          “It appears that when it suits a purpose such as arguing that atheism cannot cause anything negative to occur [...] you must have got there with rational thinking, you must not loath it, you must not wish you had faith.”

          These paragraphs have nothing to do with each other.  No one can act in the name of atheism because as you know, it’s not an ideology it’s a lack of belief in deities.  No one brought this up mind and furthermore, nothing in your subsequent paragraph actually makes it more than a lack of belief in deities of any description.  

          Now how do you get to a lack of belief in deities or indeed how do you reach any worthwile conclusion or make proper decisions?

          By reasoning.  So to be any flavour of belief or unbelief and not be just some vacuous airhead delivering meaningless statements on foot of personal whimsy you need reasons.  If you don’t have reasons for why your atheist, Christian or whatever, then your just someone making empty claims.  So yes, to truly claim a position you must have reason to do so.

          Loathing your worldview because that’s where reason and evidence took you is irrational, to do so does not look reasonable but is something that someone who merely claims an attribute might do as part of their marketing agenda.

          Because you know what reason and evidence are it is irrational to aspire, work towards or hope to be the exact opposite.  You might wish you had a faith because that would make life easier when surrounded by intolerant believers but as we’ve made clear by now, wishing is not aspiring and not what Cupp said.

          “…a long way to avoid the no true Scotsman argument that us Christians get all of the time…”

          The ‘No True Scotsman’ often crops up with former Christians because some Christians imagine that you could only become an atheist by having been one all along, that a true believer will never fall as that is impossible by definition.  They do this even when the former believer is explicit in explaining the totality of their former belief and by what process they lost that belief.  If a Catholic repudiated the pope, loathed Catholic doctrine, thought that morality stemmed from humanism,  that as far as they could see Jesus was made up and they just went along with it because they liked the ritual or the Thursday Pot-luck then the allegation that the person never truly was a Christian would be correct.  It is because of how Cupp acts that her claimed atheism is reasonably doubted and all this ever before she possibly and suddenly finds god, she’s that suspect.  Leah Libresco on the other hand may well have been an atheist who thinks she has found a rational reason to find god.

          • Kodie

            Once again, it is because she aspires to something she, by virtue of
            adhering to reason and evidence, should know is an intrinsically flawed
            and evidenceless method of evaluating the world, that being faith.  No
            one who believes in reason and evidence hopes to go to a state of
            credulously believing whatever fantasy sounds most pleasing to their
            ears. 

            Atheism isn’t always arrived at by adhering to reason and evidence. We do tend to insulate ourselves and we don’t know every atheist, the ones who don’t come out and talk about it in discussion groups and blogs, which heavily favor reason and evidence and generate discussions applauding and celebrating those aspects. We have to realize some people are left out of the conversation because our common values do not apply to or interest them.

            • Darth Cynic

              I’ll admit, an arbitrary uttering aside I cannot imagine how else one could arrive at the position of there being no deities other than reason and evidence.  Every other scenario I come up with results in the claimant not actually being an atheist.  That’s certainly not to say there couldn’t be any other way but I just can’t see em myself.  You wouldn’t be able to elaborate would you as I’d certainly like to know if there are any?

              • Kodie

                 If you work from the direction of belief, and how easy it seems to convince someone there’s a god, a person can be equally capable of being easily convinced there’s no god. They don’t work their way towards it, they just can’t be convinced of any gods. Using the same confirmation bias, based on experience, conclude. I do not know many people like this, but I wrote a lengthy post on Unreasonable Faith this morning about my mom. I used to think I was an atheist too, and could have been that way forever, but I did take the steps in my early adulthood to reason it out and become the kind of atheist I am now.

                • Kodie

                   I’d also like to point out that, aside from most families (in the US, where I am) having a religion from which to break from and questions, belief is not really the default, and many countries have atheist majority populations that simply don’t put a lot of effort into training staunch atheists.

                • Darth Cynic

                  Good points, thanks.  Though the latter case are probably like folks round here, sure they identify as Catholic but it’s mostly in name only.  Cupp certainly doesn’t sound like the latter but maybe the former.

            • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

              I know some agnostics who are in favor of being nice to religious people because we can never be sure, but I was just describing S.E. Cupp to one of these agnostics and the response was that Cupp is either not intellectually honest or not sane. 

              .

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Although I wasn’t bothered to hear Joseph Campbell say he missed the faith that he lost in his broad study of religion.  He still attended church (Episcopalian I think?) for the fellowship, but he alluded to not really believing in any of it, but wishing he had the comfort from it that he used to have.  Something about the difference between missing/longing and ‘aspire’ maybe.

            • Darth Cynic

              I dunno, the wishing, missing and longing for the comfort of another time is certainly understandable but something he also knows is beyond him now.  Aspiring, that’s intent, a statement of a significant milestone the individual seeks to achieve and possibly actively sought.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            She wishes/aspires to believe in a creature that would torture her for eternity for her lack of belief?

            Obviously, she arrived at this position rationally.

            I don’t think we should spend too much time on the exact meaning of the words she uses. She does not appear to choose words well.

            .

            • Darth Cynic

              Oh I don’t think it makes the best sense but I think it was meant as it is taken to mean.

              She may not choose words well but we are left with those she does use to work with.

  • http://ripeningreason.blogspot.com/ Bix

    Religion is a check?  I think it’s more of an enabler.  I never again want to hear the phrase ‘I have spent time in prayer, and God is calling me to seek the Presidency’.  I do not want a President who believes God is his personal supporter.  That, to me, is the height of arrogance, and I don’t think it bodes well for decision-making.  I think it leads to hubris.  Presidents are elected to represent the people of the United States, not a deity.

  • TheAmazingAgnostic

    I had known of Cupp long before MSNBC put her on their new show, The Cycle. She has a reputation for defending the religious right and is not exactly in favor of separation of church and state (She once said that not teaching creationism in public schools would be “offensive” to Christians).

    S.E. Cupp is a token skeptic. I am not sure whether she really agrees with the Evangelicals, but I do know that most influential atheist conservatives (think Karl Rove and George Will) are expected to keep quiet about their lack of belief. Cupp took that a step further: not only does she refuse to give reasons for her atheism, she defends conservative Christians while harshly criticizing other unbelievers.

    Personally, I agree with you, Hemant; I also find The Cycle difficult to watch due to S.E. Cupp.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      A Creationist atheist?

      She doesn’t believe in God, but believes that God created everything?

      Or does she just think that it is OK to teach any kind of feel good, hippy-dippy stuff just to please students? That is not very conservative.

      Why teach the nonsense of Creationism? Given the way we reproduce and the repeated genetic mutations we generate, it is impossible for evolution to not occur. 

      .

  • LanceThruster

    The stupid. It burns!

  • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

    S.E. Cupp on the afterlife:

    No offense to a host of respected preachers and theologians (or to my well-meaning father), but Dinesh D’Souza’s newest, “Life After Death” is the most lucid, reasoned and compelling challenge to atheism that this atheist has ever read. D’Souza pulls apart the “We just die” argument with the precision and objectivity of a surgeon, and offers truly satisfying evidence that there is, in fact, a hereafter. It’s a must-read for both believers and skeptics.

    Whatever else Cupp might be, she doesn’t seem to be a rationalist or materialist.

  • jkarov

    Cupp’s statement is just breathtakingly myopic in scope, and certainly for an “atheist” , and I think she’s simply pandering to the 98% of all Teaparty members who barely tolerate someone not bowing down to the Koch brothers.

    I’d have loved to be there to ask her if she believes in the Constitution:

    Article 6 paragraph3 

    “Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

    Anyone swearing allegiance to our country has to literally face the implications of the “no religious test clause” and abandon their religious prejudice in favor of the clear wall of separation that the Founders laid down in the founding document

  • http://spacegod.tumblr.com/ spacegod

    SE Cupp is the worst atheist EVER.

    She wants our President to vet things by running them by a supernatural presence she doesn’t believe in that expresses a hatred of gay people by causing birds to fall out of the sky? Puhleeze.

  • Joy G

    She’s a troll. Every time she’s on tv I have to walk away. I HAAAAAAATE that she is supposedly a public representation of atheists, because I personally am nothing like her. But damn, is she a good businesswoman. She’s got herself all packaged up as a commodity and boy, is she selling.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X