Piers, Piers, Piers. When will you understand that gun guys are people too? Good people. Come to think of it, maybe that’s what bothers you about American gun owners. Their belief in the sanctity of human life. Their willingness to defend innocent life by force of arms. This “muscular Christianity” exposes your amoral atheistic cynicism, which you [barely] hide under a bilious barrage of banality, sarcasm, condescension and ridicule. Question: what do you think of Churchill’s comment that a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet? If that liberal was having his head bashed in, would that liberal wish he’d been armed? I bet you would. Why wouldn’t you?
“If that liberal was having his head bashed in, would that liberal wish he’d been armed”
Wish no… Praying to god he was armed, yes!
“Why should I be armed? I pay guys to be armed for me. Quite frankly, I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t.”
Liberals don’t pray to GOD. They will tell the thug that they voted for Obama as they continue to get their head bashed in. I like the sound of that. Libs getting their heads bashed in, yippie
For what it’s worth, not believing in a god does not make you immoral, or a cynic. You don’t have to believe in god to lead a good life. I certainly don’t believe in any god(s), yet I believe that I am a good person. I also am somehow still not very cynical, even while living in CA.
In fact, entire moral codes are built around rational reasoning, rather than leaning on religion for your ethics. I prefer rational morals, because I can explain why something is good or bad, rather than simply referencing a text in which I claim is god’s word.
Lumping all atheists in with the likes of Piers is painting with a very broad brush.
Robert Farago has now tired of offending female readers, and is now aiming to offend his atheist readers instead.
Isn’t RF an atheist?? I’m not sure I understand your statement.
Don’t mind them; it’s just that tiresome persecution complex flaring up again. It happens sometimes, and I recommend Preparation H for those who suffer from it.
For all the belligerent talk about reason, they sure get a bug up their ass when anyone criticizes them.
Actually, most of us don’t. We just get tired to do things because your imaginary friend said so.
And somehow, condescending and belittling people with viewpoints you don’t like doesn’t count as “getting a bug up your ass.” For all that belligerent talk about logic and reason, it’d be nice to actually see it once in a while.
I don’t get Dr, Dave’s point.
As an atheist myself. There are lots of clear thinking ethical atheists and there are lots of amoral cynical atheists, Just as there are a lot of compassionate and ethical believers and lots of irrational self righteous believers.
Why is it wrong to describe Morgan as cynical or amoral atheist when he demonstrably is?
And exactly where is Farago’s misogyny. I haven seen any and I am a fairly consistent reader of this site. Sounds like a red herring
The implication that his atheism is a bad thing or that it contributes to his being such a waste of air.
It just isn’t relevant that he’s an atheist just like it wouldn’t be relevant if he were a Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist. He’s certainly a loud-mouthed, cynical bully but that transcends any belief or lack thereof in God.
On top of that the assertion that people who carry a firearm are exclusively Christian or that their reasons for doing so stem from an exclusively Christian philosophy is provably incorrect.
Attention whore. That time you said you dress provocatively I think I misunderstood what you were saying Dr. D. Now I get it. And no no no we’re not similar. If atheists would be less douchey and cynical(like Christians being self righteous and judging) people would rag on them less. And remember, sometimes stereotyping is just a shortcut to the truth.
Most atheists, like myself, aren’t. The ones you hear about are. The American Atheist League (or whatever they call themselves now) actually did some good things, but lately they’ve become inflammatory and insulting.
When you think of Christians, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Probably groups like Westboro. Because they’re loud and offensive.
Actually… those Christians that are judging non-Christians are in the wrong. I can back that up too.
To be Christian, is SUPPOSED to be Christ-like. Using the Bible, John 3:17 states Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it, but to save it. He wasn’t happy with the Religious leaders of the time, who claimed to know the truth, and He called them on the carpet on occasion. He tried to show and teach a better way to everyone else.
As stated though, there are many types of people in various theisms (mono-, poly-, a-) and agnosticism. Some are nice, some are complete idiots and/or jerks. and many of varying degree. Some will always bend something to their benefit, even if it was never intended to support their warped/corrupted view, and others will bend over backwards to help others.
I’m a female reader and I haven’t had a problem with anything I’ve read or seen here in over a year.
I do check in every day.
You white knights assume a lot about the ladies you are so busy protecting. Spare us, please.
Whew! Thanks for that.
That’s not white knights Mina, that’s the site survey in which female readers said they felt there were overtones that were offensive.
To All: As for the religious question, do we really want to divide along religious lines? Your belief, my non belief or vice versa, does it matter at all? Does it matter more than RKBA? I don’t think it does and I think if there is a red herring it’s arguing religion in a forum for guns. Can we please not divide along those (or any other extraneous) lines?
I fail to see how the OP is “painting all atheist with a broad brush”. You are projecting.
The hit dog always yelps.
Well I would say grouping them all in with Piers is a fairly broad stroke, wouldn’t you?
How many Christians care to be judged along side those of the Westboro ilk?
I agree with CA. Ben. There’s no requirement to believe in a Deity to be a moral and ethically good person, and it is “painting with a broad brush” that is the source of so much of the polarization present in this Country today. People talk on and on about respecting the Rights of others, but turn around and demonize anyone who doesn’t adhere to their particular Tribe’s exact point of view. This attitude is probably doing more damage to the Country than we recognize. It goes back to what Martin Luther King said about not being judged by the color of one’s skin (or beliefs) “but by the content of their character”. One cannot judge the content of anothers character if one dismisses him/her outright based on superficial observation and preconceived stereotypes.
You don’t have to believe in a god (I personally don’t have any strong beliefs one way or another on that issue) to believe in basic Judeo-Christian ethics. These ethics are foundational to much of what we can loosely call “Americanism” as embodied by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (hey, I just got flagged on this post by NSA).
While atheism is amoral (as in neither moral or immoral), you are quite correct that many are actually moral people. I have absolutely no reason to believe in any gods, goddess, or even spirits. So why do I try to be nice? Cause people are real. Their reactions and problems are too. So are mine. At least to my knowledge they are.
I’m also an ardent gun owner who has over 20 firearms, 3 of which are ar-15 rifles, and an AK clone. Even though, I am not likely healthy enough to run 30 KM hikes, I am willing to point my rifles down range to fight for what I believe (the constitution).
Being an atheist is partly why I do own firearms. Cause as far as the evidence has shown, I have one life, this one. One thing for sure too is, if there are any god(dess)s and they did diddly squat to help those children in the various mass shootings that have happened in history, or those trapped in cellars being molested and beaten, he sure as hell has no intention of spending one drop of their supposed infinite power to help me. So in either case, I gotta do just like the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Zoroastrians, Bole Maru or whoever else, and do it my damn self. My CZ-75 P-07 and Glock 20 help things along a bit.
No kidding. Another atheist here that resents being somehow associated with stupidity and misplaced moral outrage.
The Nazis and Communists had rational moral codes. The problem is that those codes can include murdering unwanted portions of the population. I defy you to build a case against Nazi or Communist morality without referecne to something outside anybody’s system.
The communist moral code, the 12 listed at least are not all that bad. But of course, not everyone actually adheres to the doctrines they spout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Code_of_the_Builder_of_Communism
more over I can agree with one part or entirety of someones “code” of morality or none of it.
It sounds as if you’re trying to make a god is morality argument. Which is nonsense. For one, the morality in the various books of the bible are atrocious. The multiple versions of the 10 commandments were for Jews interacting with Jews. There were many other laws that included capital punishment for menial offenses, direct orders from yaweh to commit genocide, and acts of mass murder & torture by yaweh itself.
The plea to a god is the might makes right argument. That god is supposedly all powerful & all knowing (despite the bible hinting otherwise on various occasions). If you thought, w/o one ounce of hesitation that you met whatever god you perhaps believe, and that god ordered you to put a blade through a pregnant woman and dash children against the rocks. Or perhaps stone someone who works on a day of rest, or nonbelievers?
I’m sorry, but a moral code that requires you to kill people is provably irrational. Thanks for the commie/nazi reference though, I thoroughly enjoyed that.
I’m not trying to argue religion here. It never makes any friends, and besides, I doubt that we TTAG commentators will conclude a debate that has been raging for millennia. All I was trying to do was say that I didn’t appreciate being lumped in with Piers. BDub hit the hammer on the head: Christians wouldn’t want me to compare them with Westboros. Please extend the same favor to those of us who are not religiously inclined.
Egads, does the religious propaganda ever stop?
Religions and deities are used by powerful people and governments to manage serfs who actually believe in a magical sky daddy.
You know what text was on a German Army belt buckle in WWII? Gott Mit Uns
Which means “God With Us”…
Have you ever lied? have you ever taken something, even very small that wasnt yours? Have you ever hurt someone and not apologized? The problem with atheists is they believe that just being “good” by their own standards makes them a good person. NO ONE IS GOOD! We have proven time and again the nature of humanity is evil. Without a moral standard to place ourselves against, how can we know if we are good or evil. This popular relativistic morality only proves that people will always try to end the truth to make themselves seem better
Unbelievable, Piers actually let him speak! Too many time I have seen gun proponents shouted down. This guy did fairly well, only really stumbling on the last question. What he should have said is that reducing guns may reduce gun deaths (simply do to a lack of that tool) but it does not in fact reduce deaths caused by violence. And then ask the rhetorical, “Well, England has fewer gun deaths, but four times the violent crime as the United States.”
I thought this fucker was done with his bullying.
I’m floored at some of the comments made in this video. When will people realize the only reason we aren’t speaking another language right now is because the Axis powers realized how much of a nightmare it would be to try and come to US soil?
Or we could all be speaking with Brittish accents if you go back further in time.
Umm that’s not the only reason. A huge chunk of it goes to the combined effort of all the countries that fought in WWII & invaded Axis countries, atomic bombs, and a good amount of luck. Especially luck, since the war ended before Germany could make their own atomic bombs.
Civilians being ready to fight is a very important thing, but it didn’t play as big of a role in WWII as you seem to make it. There were U-Boats that patrolled U.S. waters sinking commerce. There were multiple spy rings discovered, air raids, and even an invasion in Alaska. As in Japanese troops on U.S. soil.
You’re all on the wrong coast. The Japanese high command considered an invasion of the west coast and were talked out of it when it was pointed out that while the military were woefully unprepared, they would be facing an armed population in excess of their total population, not just troop strength.
Various Soviet sources revealed after the cold war that invasion of the US mainland was considered folly in part because of the enormous availability of arms to the populace.
Leaving speculation aside, the British learned not once but twice what an armed populace can do when called upon to organize.
For anyone to say that millions of rifle toting people aren’t an impediment to military conquest is to admit to ignorance of everything related to warfare.
The Viet Cong frustrating the Americans (and the Viet Minh frustrating the French and the Japanese), the Mujahedeen convincing the Soviets that Afghanistan wasn’t worth it, the Bantu and Tutsi driving the Belgians out of the Congo, the fact that there are no longer US troops in Somalia, the British couldn’t hold colonies in various parts of Africa (or America), need I go on? To paraphrase a meme one does not simply walk into an area and take over where the indigenous people are armed. The most effective armies for conquest are also the most poorly prepared for dealing with the tactics of guerrilla forces.
Anyone who doesn’t think such considerations matter in the minds of military planners repeats the mistakes of the losers of war after war after war.
Awe come on Piers. You threatened to leave if the U.S. didn’t change to your liking. So tired of you, don’t let The Bill of Rights hit on the way out!
RF, I don’t think that the “a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet” can be properly attributed to Churchill. It seems to have come from former Philly mayor Frank Rizzo.
Oh, and PM proves yet again what a supercilious limey git he is.
What a docile guy Mr. Hansen is. Unfortunately if he read TTAG he woulda had an answer for damn near all of those questions. Every time Piers asked a question I answered it in my head with something I’ve read here. And the answer was always better than his.
I still can’t decide if Piers Morgan is truly an idiot who cannot see facts and data and make a LOGICAL conclusion, or if he is intelligently trying to obfuscate the facts and pull the wool over the eyes of his viewers. I am leaning toward the former. But then my head hurts thinking about how foolish he must be
Literally every assertion Morgan made has been debunked.
The anti gun people are as flat earth as anti virus nuts.
I think you mean anti-vaccination. 🙂
though i read TTAG “religiously”, and for the most part I find it very professionaly written. however I am an atheist, and just about as passionate about it as anyone subscribing to christianity, and I really resent your polarizing statement about atheism. I would like to continue reading this blog without having to watch it turn to petty bigotry. can you please keep the personal attacks on belief systems out of this otherwise quite awesome forum
FYI piers morgan is a christian. (and a hypocritical media whore)
I just don’t deal in fantasy, especially when they come out of the mind of someone like Piers Morgan.
Is it just me or do these people go onto Morgan’s show unprepared.
I have yet to see anyone counter Morgan’s UK gun violence rate comparison with UK’s overwhelming violent crime rate. The only intentional homicide rates list I could find – that included the US and UK – did not have a standardized reporting (can include murder, suicide, etc).
I wish Hanson would have taken the opportunity to explain how SYG laws are supposed to work as opposed to trying a measured lawyer response.
bilious barrage of banality, sarcasm, condescension and ridicule.
For the win! Extra points! 😀
I prefer “nittering nabob of negativism” and “pusillanimous pussyfooter.”
What is a Piers Morgan and why is anybody still talking to him or listening to him?
I talked to Morgan’s viewer about this issue, and unfortunately she still agrees with him.
When will this guy go away? He simply won’t listen to reason or fact, therefore, he must be insane.
Old Ben, try talking to his viewer, lets briber her to go out for coffee so Piers won’t have a single Nielson point…
piers Morgan is what you guys call a shock jock (shirk Jerk ?), he edited a low grade red top paper in the UK and appeared on reality TV shows, not a serous man, makes a living provoking people, only believes in Piers Morgan, so don’t respond and give him the oxygen of publicity.
Please do not send him back!!
“This “muscular Christianity” exposes your amoral atheistic cynicism” –
Hey, ass-wipe…Many here, including myself, happen to be a moral, humanist and empathetic, Atheists, who are on your side of the 2ndA. How about not driving wedges where they are not needed?
I get sick of religious intolerants claim of the “moral high-ground”, as if they have some privileged and unique regard for human life. In fact in my experience, I find much more cynicism regarding humanity among the religious – cynicism I find displayed here among the various comments more often than I’d like.
Piers has found he gets his best ratings when he talks about guns.
I think he is personally anti gun, but he uses this issue to his benefit.
Even if he got his arse kicked every time, he would still continue.
Look at the media attention he gets for these shows.
I try to ignore him, be nice if TTAG would also ignore him, he doesn’t do anything to further the debate, he is just exploiting the issue.
He is not the only one…
So, this specific interview clip showed up three times on my Feedly this morning. Once here, once on guns.com and once on esquire.com. Just take a look at the different coverage and viewpoint on this same interview – esquire.com http://goo.gl/Xnszyz – guns.com http://goo.gl/8j2F2y
I enjoy reading almost everything in esquire and sometimes agree with the stuff that their political guy writes, but he, along with the regular commenters, are just so against anyone other than a law enforcement officer or other “authority” having a gun that is actually hurts my brain.
I know these two sites may be the most extreme viewpoints, but still, I thought it was funny seeing the huge swing from one side to the other.
“Amoral, atheistic cynicism” RF has lumped “atheistic” right in between two negative adjectives with the obvious implication that it is also negative. I don’t think the intention here can be denied. RF considers the refusal to believe in magical deities a character flaw. This is a pretty standard position held by lots of people of the gun, but that doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate. Do you want to alienate your readership?
Being a person of the gun myself along with a strong atheist, I’m growing tired of this disconnect. The tired idea that a belief in gun rights (natural rights) is necessarily lumped in with Christianity, right-wing conservatism, patriotism, or anything else.
I believe in liberty. Anything else is inconsequential.
What exactly does atheism have to do with gun control? Why do you have to tie those two together? Why do you feel the need to refer to atheism as “amoral?” Insufficient security in your own beliefs and need for validation/vindication?
Now, I’m an atheist and even though I find it incredibly odd that an adult could actually think that fairy tales are true, I very much respect your right to do so. I even have friends who, like you, subscribe to various irrational beliefs, and while that is strange to me, I am able to recognize that otherwise they are normal people and I can enjoy their company. Might it be too much to ask for reciprocity?
As to the morality routinely displayed by believers vs. non-believers… yea, I don’t think this is a topic you want to raise. Not much other than humiliation for you at the end of that conversation, good sir.
“amoral atheistic cynicism”???
Hey, this atheist takes objection! We’re areligous, not amoral. Plus, most of us don’t want to be compared in ANY way to this British fop who seems immune to logic, facts and reason. He keeps trotting out the “fact” that there was a 17% drop in violent crime during the Clinton gun ban, yet FAILS to note that crime had been dropping before the ban and continued to do so until it fell by a full 50% today. There is zero correlation between those figures and any AWB, and even the Clinton Justice Department noted that fact. But facts aren’t anything to zealots unless they fit their beliefs. Somebody should send Morgan a copy of Lakoff’s “Don’t Think Of An Elephant,” because he could be its poster boy.
Another atheist here objecting.
That tea-soaked twit is wrong. Trayvon Martin was armed. With hands and feet, weapons which were used in more murders in 2011 than semi-auto rifles.
Check your facts, please.
Piers is a Roman Catholic who professes a belief in god and eternal life.
His arguments against atheism with the likes of Penn Jillette are as idiotic as his arguments against guns against the scores who’ve taken him to task on that subject as well. Don’t rope atheists into his camp, please, because our position on guns is independent of our religious views. But make no mistake, Piers is among the faithful believers.