Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Umm, I recall many pauses in there, in which she waited for that bumbling fool to cobble together feeble responses. She didn't even know to spit out that stupid "Merry Winter Solstice" greeting at the top of the program. Laura did listen. That stupid fool just didn't know what to say.
Bumbling fool? Feeble responses? Ingraham was the combative one who was on the verge of foaming at the mouth, and her questions, as well as her responses, held absolutely no intellectual weight. Annie was clearly on the defense because Laura was acting like an arrogant a-hole. Laura did not listen, because if she did listen and logically respond, she probably wouldn't be a Catholic, now would she?
She was a bumbling fool because she didn't even know how to answer several questions until about 30 seconds after they were asked. She seemed horribly unprepared for the crossfire she was entering. Ingraham asked honest questions that, I'm fairly certain, most Christians would ask, and rightly so, of such stupid people.
Annie was not on the defense as far as I saw. She hardly knew what to say half the time. She had that "deer-in-the-headlights" look that reminded me of Dan Quayle in a debate.
And it seems like you attack the fact that she is Catholic because you didn't actually watch this debate, and therefore, use that fact as ammunition for your feeble arguments.
She was a bumbling fool because she didn't even know how to answer several questions until about 30 seconds after they were asked. She seemed horribly unprepared for the crossfire she was entering. Ingraham asked honest questions that, I'm fairly certain, most Christians would ask, and rightly so, of such stupid people.
Annie was not on the defense as far as I saw. She hardly knew what to say half the time. She had that "deer-in-the-headlights" look that reminded me of Dan Quayle in a debate.
And it seems like you attack the fact that she is Catholic because you didn't actually watch this debate, and therefore, use that fact as ammunition for your feeble arguments.
Whatever. I watched this clip several times, so it's pretty clear to me how it went. Ingraham was impatient, obnoxious, and rude, and Annie maintained her composure and set Ingraham's idiotic behind straight with tact and logic. It's actually hilarious watching Ingraham get cocky like she's tough and knows what she's talking about, when really she just needs to hush.
I personally believe the church has brought this situation on themselves , in saying that i believe the freedom of religion organization are totally blind to the fact that what they are accusing religion of doing, they themselves are doing in no small measure.
I also felt the athiest on the interview came across as a cold, to intellectually for her own good empty person .She talked about our children not being indoctrinated saying let our children decide for themselves, i wonder if she applies that thought to everything with her children (i doubt it) , yet says she's a 3rd generation atheist , in otherwords i am this because i have been indoctrinated by my very own family and my own children will be as well because i teach them theirs no God.
My prayer is that the Holy Sprit moves so powerfully on the hearts of the children of these athiests and breaks down this stronghold of the indoctrination of the minds of their children and the words of the athiests become a snare to themselves so all can worship freely as they wish.
So, the burden of proof is on the religious to prove that God, without a doubt, exists. It's not the burdern of atheists to prove that God doesn't exist, because the lack of evidence suggesting that God does not exist is enough "proof" for the atheist.
As "there is no God" is a newer concept, and less widely accepted, it can be argued it's the claim which needs to be proven.
Or a person could require "the burden of proof" be on anyone making a claim on the matter in any direction. That on its own the question is unanswerable or indeterminate so both theists and atheists are making claims requiring proof.
That being said I feel Dan Barker is quite intelligent and this woman likely is too. He's just bitter and obnoxious, which are common personality traits in activists. Not just atheist activists either. Activists are often like that particularly if they're based in an inherently negative position. (Atheism in itself is "negative" in the sense that it's about what you're not rather than what you are.) Activist vegans are often like that too. They're about "not" doing something i.e. eating meat. And on the Christian side some abstinence activists can be like that. If you define yourself as "one who does not have sex" I think this is in some respects limiting and maybe even self-defeating. (I am abstinent but I don't see it as defining my whole being)
Addendum: Watching it I do think Laura Ingraham was being a bit of a snot. Although the atheist gal does sound pretty ditzy. After about three minutes I got tired of both of them.
I disagree , i think she was just saying "come on what's your problem ?", you have to see it from the perspective of those (believers and unbelievers) who have celebrated christmas over the years without issue and seeing no harm in it , now being told by it's offensive to those who believe there's no God .
I have no issues with athiests, their views and promotion of atheism , i wish they also would respect freedom of speech .
Either you know or you don't know that God exists. Since there is no concrete evidence to suggest that God exists, it's illogical and foolish to believe in it. Thus, it is more rational, and makes more sense, to not believe in God because no evidence points to his/her/its existence.
So, the burden of proof is on the religious to prove that God, without a doubt, exists. It's not the burdern of atheists to prove that God doesn't exist, because the lack of evidence suggesting that God does not exist is enough "proof" for the atheist.
Prove that man evolved from apes and for that matter, that man evolved from a one cell creature living in an organic soup.
I too believe that churches have brought this on themselves by ignoring the pagan roots of the holiday. Instead of embracing the pagan traditions, true Christians should shun them just as the Israelites were required to do, and just as Jesus did. Perpetuating these traditions on the basis of "fun" does not bring honor to God.
If a student in my class was reading a comic book instead of the required reading, would I be satisfied if he just changed the cover? Disguising the winter solstice/saturnalia celebrations as Jesus' birth is (IMHO) disrespectful. If you peel back the layers and rid Christmas of every pagan tradition, you will have no holiday left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
