In a new online video for Crossfire the pundit makes the claim that conservative atheists are actually “better” than liberal ones,
Is there something wrong with a militant hostility towards religion?
She didn't say anything supporting her contention that liberals are less supportive of atheists than conservatives are.
More to the point, when all that the conservatives have done for atheists is hold up a token atheist who yearns to one day become a person of faith, if the liberals did nothing for atheism, they'd be supporting us better than the conservatives are.
S.E. Cupp is a straw-man atheist, even if she really is one. With all of the things that she has said, I have my doubts and am half anticipating her "conversion to" fundamentalist Christianity, sometime in the next few years.
What makes you think she yearns to become a person of faith?
The fact that she has explicitly said it, several times.
“I envy religious people… I envy the faithful. I would like to be a person of faith, but I’m not there yet…”
S.E. Cupp does seem like she's socialized to flatter religious people and think well of religion.
I wouldn't say that it's a socialization issue. If you ask me, she's either a poser or is whoring herself out for the money.
But I wouldn't put her down.
I would. The only interpretations I can make myself consider to be likely aren't particularly flattering. Maybe I've just been exposed to enough of her crap that my opinion of her has dropped low enough. Watch her for a bit longer, and you might come to a similar conclusion, if your stomach can take that much exposure to her.
It also shows honesty. On some level many Christians are pretending to believe - while pretending they aren't pretending. That takes a lot of dishonesty, and it speaks well for her that she didn't do that.
In my opinion, it isn't likely that it's showing honesty. I think she's being dishonest in the opposite direction from the Christians who fake belief for social reasons.
Why do you think she's not what I said - someone who's been socialized to hate her own rationality and honesty, and to like religion?
Insulting her just validates the stuff she said about "militant atheists" being so intolerant. If you revile her long enough, maybe she will disavow her atheism, just as she now reviles the "militant atheists" who revile her.
Hopefully, her honesty will win out, though.
It's a combination of dozens of little things. Almost everything she says is an almost perfect evangelical strawman, like what you expect to get out of an apologetics book. If she was really a nonbeliever, I would expect her to break out of that mindset, over time.
To put it another way, she's too perfect ... too consistent. If she was a person conflicted and self-hating, as you hypothesize, I would expect more waffling and inconsistency. What she presents seems like a facade.
If it's really true that the only kind of atheists conservatives can accept is one who is socialized to flatter religious people - that's really sad. I doubt it.
S.E. Cupp does seem like she's socialized to flatter religious people and think well of religion. But I wouldn't put her down. It shows a good deal of strength and rationality, that she was unable to get herself to believe, in spite of being heavily socialized to do so, studying religion, etc. It also shows honesty. On some level many Christians are pretending to believe - while pretending they aren't pretending. That takes a lot of dishonesty, and it speaks well for her that she didn't do that.
If she comes to later, she might see the way she puts down "militant atheists" as a kind of self-hate.
Translate what she said as "I envy people who feel they know things they don't know. I would like to be a person who feels they know things they don't know, but I'm not there yet" She's in conflict with her own honesty and rationality. She wants to reject her own honesty and rationality.
There's nothing wrong with Obama praying for guidance in his decisions, as long as he makes good decisions. His decisions are what matters, not how he came to them.
It shows a good deal of strength and rationality, that she was unable to get herself to believe, in spite of being heavily socialized to do so, studying religion, etc. It also shows honesty.
I don't think that what we're getting is anything approaching honesty. She's mostly on Faux News, after all.
This is a woman who has as much as said that she admires those who believe, as though subscribing to a concept which has no objective support is a virtue, the very definition of faith and an illustration of gullibility. In this article, she also misrepresents atheists' anger, which she presupposes is at some god or other. In this regard, she is no better than the proponents of religion who create straw-man atheists to knock down. Obviously, it has never been the deity we are angry at so much as it has been said deity's representatives and their activities and attempts to superimpose their beliefs onto as many people and governments as is humanly possible.
She wants to say she's better than Bill Maher? This is no topic she ever wants to broach with him. He would take her down HARD and not apologize after, nor would she deserve any form of apology. S. E. Cupp is a fraud.
Period, End of Discussion.
Don't forget that she could never trust an atheist in office, because she couldn't trust someone who doesn't believe in the objective morality of God.
I swear, it's like reading the atheist straw-man out of a Christian apologetics book. If she has her "big conversion moment" in another few years, I'm going to be running around telling everyone I told them so. Not that I'm certain she's a poser, but I highly suspect.