Atheism, Christianity, CNN, Fox News, Jaclyn Glenn, S.E. Cupp, USA

S. E. Cupp the “Atheist”

I should have known this would happen. For many years I have seen liars and trolls on message boards and comment sections claiming they too were once atheists who had finally seen the light. A cheap yet cunning ploy to give doubt to any secularist, this type of dishonesty you would only expect from a believer. So I should have known that with evolution (You know evolution, it’s that fact Christians don’t like) the next step would naturally be a satirical and anthropomorphised version, a troll 2.0 if you will. And here we have it

S. E. Cupp or Sarah Elizabeth as her parents call her – Always be suspicious of someone with two first names, it shows a hereditary inability to make simple decisions, you know, like choosing if you believe in God or not.

It almost sounds like 2.0 wouldn’t be out of place after her name; and the way she robotically agrees with her Fox news counterparts on nearly every subject, shows she also plays the part very well. I wonder how long it will take until she gets her theist operating system downgrade.

I know I am not the first to say it (thanks Jaclyn Glenn – you couldn’t wait a few more weeks could you) but I won’t be the last, this woman is not an atheist.

I will go one step further, as I always do, and call bullshit – she is what I like to call a class A bullshitter.

She states “I don’t believe in God, but I’m not mad at Him.”

You either don’t believe in him, or you believe he is a real thing which you can or cannot be mad at – you cannot believe in both.

“I became an atheist because I’m not a joiner. I didn’t want to be part of a club or a group.”

So you’re not a joiner …  And to prove it, you joined a group called “atheists”?

You openly admit that you never used reason, logic or critical thinking to decide if you believe in a deity, you just figured it was the cool thing to do. This is not how we determine what is true; this is not a pathway to knowledge. Doesn’t this dark haired, attractive female-conservative, with a lack of mental ability, using illogical, contradicting terms and unbelievably stupid sentences remind you of someone? Cough cough, Alaska.

Not too often, but a good few times I have met some unintelligent atheists: I have met atheists who don’t believe for the absolute wrong reasons (think it’s cool/ default position they have never actually thought about), and ones who are so politically correct that although they don’t believe in a God, they don’t dare speak out against any atrocities in his/her name. But never have I met an atheist that understands the delusion of religion, yet respects and cheers it on, to the point where knowing a delusional character who believes in zombies and angels, makes her feel safer when they are in control of nuclear weapons.

Call me crazy, but if we have Weapons of Mass Destruction (you know WMD’s, it’s the stuff we have lots of – but don’t like our enemies having any) I would want the most rational person to be in charge of them. Spaghetti Monster forbid, imagine if George W. Bush had a nightmare, where Jesus came to him in his sleep and told him to nuke Spain. What would be stopping him? Not a rational mind or any intelligence that’s for sure; he had the brain power of a sun dried tomato.

What does S. E. have to say about all this? Let us find out

S. E. Cupp said, like believers she, “agree[s] with pretty much all of the Ten Commandments.”

Wow, so she doesn’t believe in God … but she does believe in the first Commandment,

“I am the Lord they God”

And the second Commandment

“Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”

So basically she doesn’t believe in God, but she knows he is the only God and believes in no other Gods but him – perfectly logical. If Sarah Palin was an atheist, she would sound like this!

The best quote I have found, and the most telling is as follows:

“I envy religious people… I envy the faithful. I would like to be a person of faith, but I’m not there yet…”

When her first sentence is left unspecific it becomes vapid and foul, If specific her first sentence could have made sense; sure, I envy that when I die I know I’m not going to the theme-park in the clouds – and this might give some wilfully ignorant bliss to a believer – something I won’t have, therefore I can see the envy, but then I remember it is false hope and I forget about the envy and go back to pity.

Her second sentence is where we once again meet the Sarah Palin type thought process. Cupp would “like to be a person of faith?” Something I have never heard an atheist say, something I’m pretty sure an atheist should not say; the worst of all are her last few words. I will post them again as they are so poignant.

“but I’m not there yet…”

If you’re on your way to a sports game and you call ahead because you’re running late, and say on the phone “I’m nearly there, but I’m not there yet.” This logically supposes that you are in fact heading towards the game, it’s only a matter of time.

Oh and there is more, you would expect someone who doesn’t believe in God – and other such fairytales – to hope to see an atheist in the white house? WRONG!

“And you know what? I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever… Because I do not think that someone who represents 5 to 10 % of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me.”

She wants a president who has a track record of making big decisions based on no evidence, genius.

I agree there is a small percentage of atheists in the U.S. but what was the percentage of Mormons when her friends at fox news pushed for Romney’s presidency? 1.4%,

What was the percentage of financial buoyancy the 2 pre-Obama presidents resided in? <1%.

What percentage of the US doesn’t know which their left and right hand is? George W. Bush didn’t know this, and he got 2 terms.

S. E. Cupp was OK with those minorities, as long as they believed in God – which she doesn’t – kind of.

This woman is the female Stephen Colbert; the only difference is Stephen knows he is a joke. She is using the guise of atheism to pull from both sides, whilst tarnishing atheism in the process – only to later in her career “find God” and make millions more from book deals.

She has used her body and sexuality for her benefit (which I’m all for in this ultra-male dominated society) seriously, how many news anchors get away with images like this? How is it appropriate or relevant to news?

right-se-cupp

It’s ironic her show is called “Crossfire”, as that is what happens up and down the country in teenage boy’s bedrooms whilst her show airs; the follow up show should be called “How to clean semen stains so Mom doesn’t know – with S.E. Cupp.”

I am no Nostradamus, but I am certain she is a theist in atheist clothing who will soon show her true colours – because nobody with a Masters degree can be that much of an idiot. Pictures like the one above show this woman is smart enough to use her abilities for profit, in most cases I am supportive of this – but not when being dishonest about religion.

You are not an atheist S. E. Cupp, you are a liar, a parody twitter account with tits and legs.

I’m not too sure if the cupp is half empty or half full, but I do know the contents of said cupp is most certainly bullshit.

Advertisements
Standard

15 thoughts on “S. E. Cupp the “Atheist”

  1. randall says:

    I think you’re confused and what a FACT is. Facts are observable, measurable, and is science, repeatable. “Evolution” doesn’t meet any of these criteria. For the record, Muslims don’t believe in evolution either.

    Like

    • You mean “at” not “and”, Evolution is a fact, Your definition of fact is incorrect – but Evolution is observable, measurable and obviously scientific. If you don’t think so, you don’t know evolution. I have been on anti-biotics many times in my life, I know have to take a different drug because my body had adapted to fighting the original anti-biotic – that is called evolution (change over time). Unless you have some scientific credentials or an in depth knowledge of science, don’t bother.

      Like

  2. Norman Plumley says:

    Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
    Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
    Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
    Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
    Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

    Evolution is a scientific fact. It happened! It continues to happen. no religious text will change that. no matter how much you believe in them it wont change what didn’t actually occur.

    Like

    • I’m sorry to do this to you, but I have no idea why you have posted a list of definitions to words I fully understood already – especially on a piece about an atheist CNN reporter – which has nothing to do with science or usages of words. I have to ask, are you in the right place?

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Norman Plumley says:

    “RANDALL says:
    I think you’re confused and what a FACT is. Facts are observable, measurable, and is science, repeatable. “Evolution” doesn’t meet any of these criteria. For the record, Muslims don’t believe in evolution either.” it more than meets the criteria.

    Like

    • Who is Randall? I am utterly confused. Evolution is a fact, it is measurable and observable. I can only have a certain type of anti biotic because my body has became immune to other types – this adapting of my body is called evolution (change over time) Humans are meant to live in the Savannah, that is where our species originated, that is why we have appendixes; they used to be large, used to break down grass- but we left the savannah and don’t eat grass any more – so that large organ has diminished to something many people have removed now – this is observable and measurable evolution.

      Like

    • I am sorry, for some reason your second comment came into my inbox mixed with someone else’s, so I didn’t understand what you were saying. I agree with your above comment specifying the facts of evolution, and that is fits with the criteria. Sorry again for my being confused.

      Like

  4. She states “I don’t believe in God, but I’m not mad at Him.” If she truly does not believe in any gods then why does she say “but I’m not mad at him”. It would be more accurate to say “therefore I am not mad at any mythical deity”.

    Like

      • admin says:

        So delete this post.
        As a science loving atheist you are always telling to the world that you only rely on facts. Well, guess what: the fact here is that this lady is an atheist. All that words that you wrote are not an argument based on facts, it’s just a supposition you’ve made.
        I was guessing that the core of your supposition was your belief that you can’t be an atheist and a conservative, but now that you admit you can, this entry is pointless, because you are going against what you believe.

        Like

      • You are very confused. I will not delete my post. I do rely on facts and reason – this is an opinion piece with much evidence. Her atheism isn’t a fact, it is something she claims. As someone who values reason and facts, I don’t just take her at her word. That would be completely unscientific. Instead I investigated her claims and found her to be false. You misunderstand my post, and believed my proposition was that she was not a conservative and atheist. So you clearly have trouble reading and comprehending. I’d advise you to work on that and not asking me to remove posts. As you have more chance of understanding the chemical composition of a fart’s thought than me removing a post for an offended stranger.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s