Jon Stewart Lashes Out At Anti-9/11 Cross Atheists: ‘Why Do You Give A Sh*t?’

[rug]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-lashes-out-at-anti-911-cross-atheists-why-do-you-give-a-sht/

Video at link.

[madrchsod]

1. he raises an excellent point about atheism

[dmallind]

2. Here's why we give a shit......

...In God We Trust on our money - put there by McCarthyites and Christian bigots

Under God in our pledge, put there by McCarthyites and Christian bigots

Prohibitions against atheists working or serving in state government in at least 17 states, put there by thecrats and kept there by Christian bigots

Atheists least trusted, least politically viable group in the nation, below blacks, gays and Muslims, and heck Jews too Jon, by far - because of Christian bigotry

Education dumbed down and restricted, with fairy tales compared on an equal footing to science, which is itself hamstrung in promising areas, because of Christian bigotry

Courts where atheists have to seek legal rights festooned with two-ton monuments to Christian bigotry

Overt and overwhelming indoctrination of the military that protects us all into Christian bigotry - and dominionism too

Laws against equal marriage rights and reproductive freedom, not to mention many leser erestrictions born and maintained not just out of Christian bigotry, but Christian oppression.

We've all seen what happens when Christians are allowed to make a numerical majority and protected status into a weapon aimed at excluding and marginalizing everyone else.

The question, especially for a Jewish man, is not why we give a shit, but why you don't.

[Goblinmonger]

3. It was a funny bit. He didn't address two points I think are important

1. The First Amendment issue.
2. The fact that the nasty atheists have said they would drop the case if all religions were allowed to have symbols there. It isn't about taking the cross away but about not endorsing just one religion at the exclusion of all others.

But I laughed. I like Jon. I don't feel atheists are somehow excluded from satire.

[trotsky]

4. Your two points are smack on.

But also, political satire isn't as funny when it's directed at those who wield no power.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Yeah, speaking truth to the most hated minority

doesn't smack of true bravery. But I'm still cool with it. Just wish he would have addressed the issue they have been addressing.

[Igel]

8. Who would that be?

The people that bring suits and force schools and judges, politicians and park administrators to reverse their decisions and do what those bringing the suits want?

Granted, the power's wielded through a bureaucratic mechanism, but atheists have as much power as any other group when it comes to access to the courts. They often have an interpretation of the law on their side, one that provides compulsion over schools, judges, politicians, parks, city councils, and other people who obviously have so much more power.

Then again, I guess you really are weak if you can tell those with great power what to do.

There are different types of power. Some is political, some legal, some cultural, some moral, some economic, some intellectual, some administrative. Few have a lot of many types; many have some of some type, few have none of no type.

[trotsky]

10. Right, everyone has the same political power as everyone else.

That's why so many politicians fall over each other to announce their lack of belief in the Christian god. That's why the president end his speeches with "There is no god to bless America.". Yes, it's all clear to me now.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Read the U of Minn study showing atheists are the most hated minority

and then get back to me.

[Igel]

7. So they should rummage through the wreckage.

Find something that resembles the symbol used by Buddhists. Something that resembles the religious symbol used in Muslim worship. The symbol of the Hindu faith. The acknowledged symbol of animists and Wiccans, Satanists and whatever else can be slipped under the "religion" rubric. Not atheism, of course, nor Taoism.

Plus it's in a museum. Not every museum has to have all faiths represented. If nothing was claimed to reflect those religions in the wreckage and then extracted and given prominence, nothing was claimed. It's like saying that the Smithsonian has to empty out all the Egyptian and Buddhist artifacts it has because they don't have anything representing my particular religion. It's Xian, but we reject crosses as pagan. We'd have an empty case. (In fact, there are more militant members who would have the Smithsonian destroy all the Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Native American, etc., religious stuff.)

That atheists seldom object to historical or "other's" cultural artefacts, even though this particular cross is in some sense historical, says that their objection is synchronic, based in a current argument and not in a rejection of all artefacts that are religious on the grounds that they're religious.

Some are intolerant and biased against minorities. Others, against majorities.

[Goblinmonger]

12. The fact that people get all warm and fuzzy

because some wreckage of a building that is based on right angles actually consisted of 2 pieces are right angles to each other does not mean that piece has to be in a museum sponsored by the government.

That people are straight-faced saying that it isn't a cross bur represents something else to people is just mystifying to me.

This is a museum dedicated to those that died in the attack. This is a museum sponsored by the government. The use of a christian symbol at the exclusion of other symbols that represent the full spectrum of those that died in the attack is insulting.

It's no more an artifact than the million other pieces of rubble. It's picked from those millions because people see it as a cross. The fact that people want to white-wash this and put up a christian symbol dedicated to the many non-christians that died is, again, insulting.

[LiberalFighter]

13. Christians seem to be more inclined to see something that is religious in nature then others.

It appears. Even if it is not there or in this case what are the odds that a cross would be found in a mess that consists of girders and beams that normally joined at right angles.

[NMMNG]

5. Yeah

Why do atheists give a shit?

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the RRRW types threatening to rape and kill atheists for daring to oppose a tax-supported display of Christianity on public land are the same ones who were screaming bloody murder over the Park 51 mosque (which is private property)?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Not his first dabbling in false equivalence. EDIT: Link.

Remember the "Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear?" http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-disses-the-daily-show-rally-its-better-to-have-a-rally-thats-about-something/

[onehandle]

14. Atheists clearly enjoy bad publicity.

A tiny, tiny thing in such a high profile place.

Makes Atheists look crazy.

[trotsky]

15. Wow, yeah, certainly is crazy to fight for the inclusion of other faiths.

Because that's what they're asking for. If Christianity is represented, shouldn't all faiths be represented? Do you disagree?

[onehandle]

16. Sure. The workers who constructed the girder Star of David, Buddha, Ganesh etc...

...out of the 9/11 wreckage should have their creations right next to that cross.

[trotsky]

17. Ah, so you do think it's OK for other faiths to be excluded.

Carry on, then.

[LAGC]

36. Yeah, "crazy" atheists for wanting to enforce the First Amendment.

But I guess your view should come as no surprise, considering how little you care for the Second Amendment.

Guess the whole Bill of Rights is just a "tiny, tiny thing" eh?

[humblebum]

18. One good thing about it is that it exposes 'American Atheists'

as the very bigoted hate group that it is. Atheists would do well to distance themselves from such a fanatical group.

[laconicsax]

19. Yes, the bigoted hate group that's fighting for religious inclusion.

Apparently in your world, filing suit over blatant discrimination is bigoted.

[humblebum]

20. I have yet to see anyone fighting for exclusion, although I'm sure there are a few.

But the man's words are typical of American Atheists' statements toward Christianity in any situation.

[laconicsax]

22. You mean these words?

"They can allow every religious position to put in a symbol of equal size and stature, or they can take it all out, but they don’t get to pick and choose."

Yeah, that's SO bigoted. How dare they suggest that it's improper for Christianity to get preferential treatment! :eyes:

[humblebum]

23. Well, since there were only X number of people who died, it

only stands to reason that X number of religions and groups need to be represented. It doesn't require every known religion to be represented. It's really no big task to get that done. I can hear the violins now.

[laconicsax]

25. And the American Atheists have said they'll drop the suit if the display is made inclusive.

I'll take the fact that you're trying to change the subject as an apology, which I accept.

[backscatter712]

21. Yeah, anything that dares level rational criticism at religion is a BIGOTED HATE GROUP!!!

Jeez, put down the Kool-Aid.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

26. Well, being open to new ideas requires some way to evaluate them.

What better way to evaluate new ideas than with rigorous testing to see if they're true? It sure beats simply believing something because other people believe it.

[Silent3]

27. "Narrow", as in not including as-yet-unspecified "other ways of knowing"

We're still waiting for these "other ways" to be spelled out.

[humblebum]

28. "Narrow" as in if you cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or touch something

It doesn't exist, or can't exist or probably doesn't exist. But mainly narrow in the there is only one rational way to think. BTW, those other ways of knowing that you say don't existed have in fact been around much longer than logical empiricism. In fact, logical empiricism has been dumped by the majority of scholars over the last couple decades. Those "other ways" you're always whining about have been spelled out here more than once. There's no big secret.

[Silent3]

29. No, those other ways haven't

And again, you trot out the same straw man version of empiricism you typically trot out.

Those closest you ever get to stating these "other ways" is dancing around them, perhaps saying what they aren't rather than what they are, while certainly never answering any hard questions about how these "other ways" can be distinguished from wishful and/or fearful thinking.

I suspect I already know what your supposed "other ways" are. I also suspect that you're simply afraid to lay them out plainly and clearly, because when so exposed they're embarrassingly easy targets for criticism.

If I were looking at a flimsy boat full of holes, and I'd known many others like it to have sunk fairly often, would I be "narrow minded" for refusing to climb aboard that boat, simply because you assured me that there are "other ways of floating"?

[humblebum]

30. Those other ways are simply other recognized epistemologies. And I have discussed them many times.

you might want to consider doing some independent research or taking a course in philosophy,especially the philosophy of science. The simple fact is that Logical Positivism, which was the backbone of the Scientific Method, was designed to consider ONLY that which is, apparent to, and observable by the five senses, nothing else. That's the difference.

And you refer to a fear of criticism. Anyone that even intimates that the limit of human experience is restricted to that which is limited to the 5 senses is totally open to criticism. And quite frankly, I could not care less what an atheist thinks of the beliefs of others. But when they openly state a policy of ridicule for anyone who believes, as many atheist have and do, then they throw out any chance of being taken seriously, IMO.

[laconicsax]

31. Name them.

Time to put up or shut up, humblebum. Name the other ways of knowing you love so much.

BTW: There are far more than five senses. This is something which is recognized by science, so you might want to update your straw man.

[humblebum]

32. They have been up time and again. And as far as more than five senses,

What other recognized physical senses do humans possess besides besides sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching. It is true that animals such as sharks have as many as seven. But, human physical perception has always been based on the five recognized human senses. So do tell us what other senses science considers to be perceptors of empirical evidence. Intuition is not considered, nor apriori knowledge, nor the metaphysical, etc.

[LAGC]

37. Google is your friend:

http://factoidz.com/how-many-senses-does-a-human-have/

Science can study and attempt to explain all sorts of "invisible" forces, IF THEY REALLY EXIST.

If you claim that God is really out there performing miracles and what not, it becomes a scientific question, as science deals with such things that can be measured.

[laconicsax]

42. Close your eyes and touch tip of your finger to the tip of your nose.

Which of your five sense did you use to do that? (How did you know where your finger was without seeing it, and how did you know where the tip of your nose was?)

Which of your five senses tells you which way is up and keeps you from falling over?

Which of your five senses tells you that you have sore muscles?

Which of your five senses tells you that time has passed?

Which of your five senses tells you that it might be a good time to use the toilet?

Which of your five senses tells you when you're hungry?

Which of your five senses tells you when you're dehydrated?

There are also subdivisions within the standard five, but I won't bother with those right now.

[humblebum]

43. You are still operating within the five senses used for observation, I hate to tell you.

Now, if you are going to begin breaking them down into subdivisions, feel free. But, for the purposes of empirical observation the recognized number is five. Sore muscles, hungry, thirsty, don't ya kinda think that has to with the sense of feeling (touch)? And time passing is generally confirmed by looking at your watch or by observation of something,ie.position of the sun or stars. There are still only 5 recognized human senses, which are used empirically. Intuitions are not recognized; gut feeling is not recognized, metaphysical experience is not recognized. That is not to say that they do not exist, but ONLY five are recognized if obtaining empirical proof is your goal.

[darkstar3]

44. Denial. The first sign of loss.

[humblebum]

45. Um? Who is denying the existence of only 5 senses for the purposes of scientific observation?

for any other semses to be considered reliable enough to provide empirical proof they would need to be proven to close to absolute in their ability to perceive. I have always believed that there indeed are more than 5 senses. But in the realm of science, 5 are recognized. Observation gained by any other 'senses' are purely subjective.

[darkstar3]

46. How long before you move on to anger?

[humblebum]

47. Now tell me? Would you call that a straw man, or was it a red herring, or both? nt

[laconicsax]

48. LOL! Good one!

Touch is 'sensed' with the skin. Which part of your skin tells you that you're hungry, thirsty, or suffering from internal injuries?

Hate to break it to you, but you can sense the passage of time without checking a watch or seeing the sky. Don't believe me? Spend some time in a flotation tank. If that isn't your thing, sit in a corner facing the wall. You'll be aware that time is passing even without "looking at your watch or by observation of something,ie.position of the sun or stars."

Here's a nice piece about how there are more than five: http://harvardmedicine.hms.harvard.edu/fascinoma/fivesenses/beyond/extra.php wake up and educate yourself.

[humblebum]

49. What you are doing is including those non-sensical elements

that were purposely excluded from the process of logical positivsm, which was the basis of the Scientific Method. That only includes the five basic senses. I never said that these other sensations did not exist. If I said that I had an unmistakable sense of the presense of God. Then, would that sense prove God's existence objectively, or would it be subjective? We are talking about senses that can provide objective proof.

What is most obvious here is that your makes any atheistic position a very precarious one.

[laconicsax]

50. Uh huh. Keep squirming. n/t

[humblebum]

51. I'm not squirming, I'm laughing. No one has said that these other senses

such as ESP don't exist except, of course, skeptics who are often atheists. You have just raised fortune tellers to the level of scientists.

I think I have an upset stomach. I'm not sure. It feels like it, but since I can only feel with my fingertips, I can't be sure.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Skeptics will deny ESP

because it, frankly, is not reproducible and doesn't break past random chance. If you have a study or can prove that it is, there's a pile of money out there for you. Please let me know that you are going to accept the challenge, though, because that is something I would buy tickets to.

So what about the "close your eyes and touch your nose with your finger"? Which of your only five senses made that possible. With no sight or no touch how could you possibly know where your nose is?

[EvilAL]

57. I can scratch my balls in the dark,

it has nothing to do with having a sense. After scratching my balls all these years I can scratch them quite easily from different angles. Unless just having a sense of awareness counts, as in after tens of thousands of times doing something your brain just automatically knows how to do it. Amputees feeling their missing limbs itching would be another fucked up example. If they have that figured out then it has to be related to closing your eyes and touching your nose.

[humblebum]

60. Take the sense of feeling away, and see if you can do that. Very hard

when total numbness exists. But that is not even what I am talking about. I have no doubt there are other senses, but the question is how many senses are utilized to evaluate X objectively and empirically. If there is a plant in front of you, you see the plant, smell the plant, touch and feel its leave and texture, You might even enjoy tasting the plant to see if it is spearmint(or whatever), and you might even hear the wind making a distinctive sound rustling through the leaves. You have utilized five senses, deducing the presence of a plant.

Does my sense of inner ear balance let me know there's plant? Am I communicating with the plant on some extra-sensory level? Though those might be considered senses, any assessment of the plant based upon them is purely subjective. I cannot prove the plant's existence or anything about the plant empirically by the use of those extra-senses. However, the first five proved the plant was there, and that it was a plant. Close to 100% objectivity. That's what I'm talking about.

Maybe there are other senses that can detect and observe, but for the purposes of objective scientific observation, how many more than 5 are there?

[Goblinmonger]

62. Pretty sure I could do it with numbness.

I don't touch anything until I get to my nose. I might not be able to confirm I hit my nose, but I could get there without touch.

[humblebum]

63. You have obviously never had a limb damaged to the point where

movement was possible but absolutely no feeling. I have no doubt it can be done using sight and of course a sense of balance is always necessary, but a hand feels the size of a catcher's mit and trying to type requires you to watch and position where each finger touches a key. Very difficult. The truth is that touch is very much needed. Certainly there are other parts of the nervous system involved, but that is a perfect example what losing one sense is like. However, those other four senses you referred to are not considered as being able to assess the objectivity of empirical evidence. For that purpose, there are five. Scientic developments may change that, but for now there are five. I have no doubt that there are others. Most believers probably feel the same.

[EvilAL]

64. I think the trick would be

to touch someone else's nose with your eyes closed. I agree I could do it without the sense of touch, but I think it's just memory. Would memory be considered a sense? Probably not.
Babies learn to touch things and you can even see them learning to use their hands and stuff. Healthy ones can see, hear, taste, touch and smell, but they can't touch their noses at will even with their eyes opened until the connections are made in the brain and then they can do it anytime they want, eyes opened or closed. So I don't think being able to touch your nose in the dark or without any senses would be considered a sense.

[humblebum]

66. Perhaps memory could be considered a sense. Since we seem

to be broadening the paradigm here, it is beginning look like anything that inputs into consciousness via the nervous system is a sense.

[EvilAL]

65. I think I could for the reason I stated above,

I'm not totally buying this extra senses thing either. I don't even think ESP or any of that other stuff is real. It would be interesting to find proof of other senses and be able to tap into them at will. I have never really thought about it until now.

[humblebum]

67. It has been demonstrated that certain animals do have other

senses, such as a certain type of shark. So, perhaps this is an area of science that is open for new discoveries and especially how the concept of "sense" is defined. Maybe humans do possess more than we realize.

http://scienceray.com/biology/the-extrasensory-perception-of-the-seven-sense-shark/

[EvilAL]

68. Neat.

These extra senses help them in many ways. The pressure one is in other fish too according to the article and helps them know their depth and stuff. The little holes that detect electricity are intriguing. How the hell can they detect that from miles away.. With all the other fish in the water they can hone in on a certain fish by it's electricity.. Kind of like a dog being able to smell one thing in a pile of thousands of other things. Thanks, interesting discovery.

[Silent3]

34. You've evasively eluded to these "other ways" many time, yes.

That's not the same as spelling them out. Why not just humor me and state them again, even if that would require the horribly difficult act of repeating yourself? You certainly seem to have no difficultly at all repeatedly and often regurgitating the same straw men you are so fond of, so why are these "other ways of knowing" any more difficult for you to repeat?

You evade in exactly the same way a politician who doesn't want to answer a question evades, saying what you'd rather say, repeating your talking points, and not actually answering the question. The usual reason for that among politicians is that they know a straight answer won't be very flattering to the agenda they're peddling.

[humblebum]

35. Other epistemologies have been discussed here by myself and others

many times. I believe it was you who brought the subject up in this thread, so that would be your straw man. Educate yourself.

[Silent3]

38. Wow, you really just don't want to own up to these "other ways".

Sure I could look up things myself, but it's very curious how you very clearly don't want to voice these "other ways" yourself. You avoid mentioning whatever these "other ways" are as if they're dangerously radioactive.

Besides, anything I looked up myself you could always claim wasn't what you had in mind, or that I wasn't interpreting what I found myself the way you mean it, etc. Protecting your ability to duck and evade and be vague would be the chief result of me trying to do your work for you.

I believe it was you who brought the subject up in this thread, so that would be your straw man.

Furthermore, after long exposure to the idea, you still don't know what a "straw man" argument is. A "straw man" is not made a "straw man" by repetition, by who brought up what first, etc.

A "straw man" is a easily defeated caricature of a more complicated idea. Trying to reduce scientific skepticism about supernatural claims to "not believing anything you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch" is a caricature, an over-simplification designed to appear laughably naive. That caricature is easy to defeat. Real scientific skepticism, fully spelled out, it a much tougher opponent, one you seem to incapable of taking on in it's real form.

That's a straw man.

Not that I expect you to absorb the definition of "straw man" any better this time than you have before, on the dozens of other occasions you've had to learn the concept which nevertheless keeps slipping from your grasp. All you seem to get is that it's some vaguely negative accusation, one that you spit back like a petulant child using swear words he doesn't understand.

If you are deliberately vague and evasive in presenting your own point of view, the fact that someone arguing against is left making guesses about what you mean and might not always get it right is not a "straw man", because any such confusion is the result of a dishonest and cowardly rhetorical tactics on your part.

[humblebum]

39. And your straw man fits that def. to a tee. And definitely a red herring.

I am still waiting to find out what other basic human senses have been added to the previously considered five.

[LAGC]

40. See post #37. (n/t)

[Silent3]

41. I spelled out out how you were using a straw man.

You spell out how I'm using one. Once again, you simply claim, but do not support. And once again, you evade spelling out these "other ways" of knowing too.

[humblebum]

52. Been there, done that.

[Silent3]

55. Which again is more evasion, now on two counts

You're either ashamed to say what you've have to say, or have made it some absurd and childish point of pride to not repeat yourself.

[darkstar3]

56. If he didn't want to repeat himself, he could at the very least link to something.

No, it's all about refusing to give people the opportunity to once again school him on ontological and teleological arguments (which he considers other ways of knowing instead of argumentative forms).

[Goblinmonger]

54. Wow. You have to let go of the "only five senses" thing.

It's making you look foolish. I'm just a lowly English teacher and I have read the stuff on the number of senses and how much work has been done is science in that regard. Time to pull your head out of the sand. Though the irony of you bagging on science with faulty scientific information is pretty rich.

[humblebum]

58. I never said that there were only five senses, but in order to

objectively, empirically, observe something, it's difficult to rely on ESP or a sense hungry. Oh! zork over there, his fracker is making funny blizzits.

[darkstar3]

59. This is starting to get sad.

[edhopper]

33. When the rhetoric from the right

seems to concentrate on 9/11 being a Muslim attack on Christian America, maybe using a cross as a symbol for the memorial isn't such a good idea.
Stewart is a comedian first, and he often is going for the joke rather than making a valid point. Something he would readily admit to.

[_ed_]

61. Well, I give a shit because of the First Amendment's

Establishment Clause. You know... the clause that has allowed a Jewish minority to flourish in an overwhelmingly Christian nation.