Cupp: The Self Hating Atheist?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

S. E. Cupp has been on my radar for a while. She has appeared numerous times on Fox News promoting her new book on the media's attack on Christianity... The selling point is that she is an atheist.

Linky.

Now this could go in Social Issues or Politics, but I wondered what others made of her atheism.

She says she isn't a 'militant atheist', is envious of people of faith, wouldn't elect an atheist for President, and doesn't believe in god "for now" or "yet".

Interestingly, she shows the same behaviour towards evolution. In her book, she makes a case for intelligent design, but says she believes in evolution.

I'm not interested in psychoanalysing her, but I wonder if this is the "non-militant" or "non-angry" atheism people (believers) seem to want? Because I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

[Cainkane1]

The worlds full of confused people. Ms. Cupp is just one of millions.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I have a feeling she's someone they will use as an example of "someone who once held these crazy notions but now thinks the right way".

Her atheism doesn't come off as anything genuine to me; she wants to believe, and IMO she'll end up believing.

 

[Robin]

Yep - she is going to see the light and become one of those ubiquitous "I used to be an atheist" Christians - like Alister McGrath

 

[Kopji]

bleah. like fish flavored ice cream.

 

[marplots]

I'm a non-militant atheist also. Atheism makes me immune to religion. So that when someone claims authority based on God, I hold that it is merely a different way of expressing their own opinion. I mean, there is no God, so the ideas come from somewhere, right?
In this light, I think I agree with her, although I am not a conservative either. If I hold true to principles and say that I discovered them on my own, and Bush held true to principles that he wishes to think God shares, what's the difference? Aren't we both principled and acting on our best judgment?
I don't think that people are able to abandon their deepest beliefs and most prized principles just because some religion tells them otherwise. I think it works the other way round. People change religions (or simply don't practice authentically) when the religion doesn't match up with their worldview. That's probably why I am an atheist although raised to be a Christian.
If you look at it that way, as religion in service to man instead of some Pavlovian overlord, it becomes less of a thing to hate on sight and more of a taste in music thing.

BillM

 

[AZAtheist]

she's a putz...The prez needs to answer to the people! not a "higher power"
She's on my personal "ignore" list.

 

[phantomb]

I'm a non-militant atheist also. Atheism makes me immune to religion. So that when someone claims authority based on God, I hold that it is merely a different way of expressing their own opinion. I mean, there is no God, so the ideas come from somewhere, right?

The ideas come from somewhere, but not necessarily from the individual. You're discounting religious dogma, childhood indoctrination, the influence of popes and other religious figures, etc.

 

[blobru]

Miss Cupp appears to want to carve an op-ed niche for herself as a sort of religious 'virgin' (as in she's never had faith but she's open to the experience) with a healthy curiosity about belief, in effect to tease xtians with the prospect of her conversion. It also lends her viewpoint a facile objectivity -- an atheist praising religion can't be doing so out of bias: it must be true! -- which must be comforting to her readership. Her ideas, at least in the linked interview, are poorly expressed and defended. She comes across as a media-whore-in-training.

 

[marplots]

The ideas come from somewhere, but not necessarily from the individual. You're discounting religious dogma, childhood indoctrination, the influence of popes and other religious figures, etc.

Ah, indeed. Because I grant the religious the same ability as I have to accept or reject arguments and religious teachings. You can see it yourself when a church breaks up (as many Baptist Churches do over dogma conflicts) and it is evidenced by the splitting off of sects in the major religions. Those that are the most schooled and hold the deepest devotion are more likely to cleave off when the authorities do not meet their internal standards, not less.

The bottom line for me is that I think of the religious as just as thoughtful as I am, just as biased and just as prone to error. I do not think that my opinions are free from the influence of my upbringing or society or authority figures.

BillM

 

[Augustus]

Chances are, Cupp is just projecting this in order to rake in the money. If I were a generally conservative Atheist who could write long-winded political treatises, I'd probably take a similar route.

 

[yomero]

I'm a non-militant atheist also. Atheism makes me immune to religion. So that when someone claims authority based on God, I hold that it is merely a different way of expressing their own opinion. I mean, there is no God, so the ideas come from somewhere, right?

I see that you joined in Feb. 2006, but have only 10 posts. I hope you won't be offended and get lost for another 4 years if I partially disagree with you.
In your first paragraph, I think you are proposing that morality comes from somewhere that is not god since god does not exist. If that is your argument, I agree. However, if a person thinks that his concepts of good and evil proceed from god, his sense of morality sometimes becomes distorted. Perhaps he approves persecution of homosexuals, racial inequality, oppression of women, slavery, execution of infidels, etc. since those situations are sanctioned by his religion.

In this light, I think I agree with her, although I am not a conservative either. If I hold true to principles and say that I discovered them on my own, and Bush held true to principles that he wishes to think God shares, what's the difference? Aren't we both principled and acting on our best judgment?

I do not believe the rumor that G.W. Bush is waiting for the rapture or for the second coming. That it is essential that there be unrest in the Middle East to facilitate that event. This is supposed to be the reason for the invasion of Iraq. Even if this is a myth, it illustrates the danger of seeking divine guidance for acts of government.

I don't think that people are able to abandon their deepest beliefs and most prized principles just because some religion tells them otherwise. I think it works the other way round. People change religions (or simply don't practice authentically) when the religion doesn't match up with their worldview. That's probably why I am an atheist although raised to be a Christian.

In some cases there are those ready to commit the most atrocious crimes if they think their religion demands it. There are numerous examples from history and present times: The Crusades, the Inquisition, attacks against abortion clinics, the events of 9-11, etc.

If you look at it that way, as religion in service to man instead of some Pavlovian overlord, it becomes less of a thing to hate on sight and more of a taste in music thing.

BillM

I agree with your final paragraph.

We are atheists, we have no dogma, no sacred truths inscribed in some holy book, no pontiff to lead us right. I believe it's natural that we should disagree on details of our atheism.

 

[Minarvia]

Okay, I'll admit I didn't go to the link, but I don't think I have to. The title says it all. Yes, I hated by myself but now I think the right way and now look at me!!! GAH!!!

So...religious people never sometimes have self-loathing? Ever? Really? I don't buy that horse crap for one second.

 

[marplots]

In some cases there are those ready to commit the most atrocious crimes if they think their religion demands it. There are numerous examples from history and present times: The Crusades, the Inquisition, attacks against abortion clinics, the events of 9-11, etc.

We are probably on the same page...
I would guess that whatever the mechanism is for the religious, it parallels nationalism, tribalism, racism and so on...

I am not out to excuse religious-based atrocity, but I don't think it is some special flaw based on belief in God. If I had to vote, I'd put blame at the doorstep of powerful orators and misguided leaders. How is it that one person can sway the masses in any race to evil acts? I have to say that many preachers (and other brands of charismatic con men) do enthrall. I can listen to a great preacher and be moved. Temporarily, but it is akin to a great piece of music that taps deep emotion. As an example, I'd point to MLKs "I have a dream" speech. Here is a preacher using his powerful rhetorical skills and it somehow makes me feel larger than myself.

As far as religious inspired terrorism, I think blaming religion alone is too simplistic. It's a piece, and an important piece, but I think the political and other influences play their parts.

As far as Ms. Cupp goes, if she's playing the media for chumps to make a buck, well, so be it. She doesn't speak for me. Let her be as disingenuous as she wishes. It was funny to see her try to slide away from atheist toward agnostic when pressed. I prefer Hitchen's abruptness and clarity, but Hitch doesn't seem to care if the hoi polloi like him.

I am also amused at how we atheists are trotted out like an exotic zoo animal on talk shows. After looking at the Cupp thing, I revisited some old footage of Ayn Rand expressing her atheist views. Seems like things haven't changed much since Phil Donohue interviewed her.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have a feeling she's someone they will use as an example of "someone who once held these crazy notions but now thinks the right way".

Her atheism doesn't come off as anything genuine to me; she wants to believe, and IMO she'll end up believing.

How do you know it is not just a marketing ploy? The anti atheist atheist seems like it could be a great gimic for a writer to sell a lot of the usual crappy books.

 

[sadhatter]

How do you know it is not just a marketing ploy? The anti atheist atheist seems like it could be a great gimic for a writer to sell a lot of the usual crappy books.

Yeah that is my vote as well. I mean what would be better for a christian author than to say " i used not to believe".

I just do not get a genuine sense of her being an atheist, i don't know how else to explain it other than she seems to be setting up for something.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

S. E. Cupp has been on my radar for a while. She has appeared numerous times on Fox News promoting her new book on the media's attack on Christianity... The selling point is that she is an atheist. (Emphasis Mine)

Faux News promoting this bitch is all I need to know.

Ms. ****.. I mean Cupp...is not an atheist. She never was an atheist. She's willing liar for the Rethuglicans/Christian Reich/Tea Baggers out to make a few bucks while promoting American fascism.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10.

 

[yomero]

We are probably on the same page...
I would guess that whatever the mechanism is for the religious, it parallels nationalism, tribalism, racism and so on...

I am not out to excuse religious-based atrocity, but I don't think it is some special flaw based on belief in God. If I had to vote, I'd put blame at the doorstep of powerful orators and misguided leaders. How is it that one person can sway the masses in any race to evil acts? I have to say that many preachers (and other brands of charismatic con men) do enthrall. I can listen to a great preacher and be moved. Temporarily, but it is akin to a great piece of music that taps deep emotion. As an example, I'd point to MLKs "I have a dream" speech. Here is a preacher using his powerful rhetorical skills and it somehow makes me feel larger than myself.

I see your point, and you are right. Adolf Hitler exemplifies how a charismatic leader can lead his society to evil without relying on religion. I don't think it fair to propose that Nazism was a religion. If we atheist reject the idea that "atheism is just another religion", we shoudn't accept the same for Nazism. My feelings about MLK are similar to yours.

As far as religious inspired terrorism, I think blaming religion alone is too simplistic. It's a piece, and an important piece, but I think the political and other influences play their parts.

I don't think we should excuse religion so easily. The events of 9-11 are a good example. Whatever grievances Muslims have against the USA, they can not be as legitimate as the ones we in Latin America have.
Yet, it is unreasonable to believe that a dozen or more Latins would enter your country, stay for several months, take piloting lessons and proceed to crash against buildings and thus lose their lives and murder thousands of innocents. And without faltering in their resolve. Religion is the component that accounts for the difference.

 

[KingMerv00]

Milquetoast.

 

[Ryokan]

I saw this woman on Bill Maher's show and she seemed, well, to be blunt, quite idiotic, and her arguments didn't convince at all.