1. Comment #19617 by wice on January 28, 2007 at 11:43 pm

i've heard that fox news was something else, but... omfsm! the reporter can't stop preaching while making the interview, and they cover the kids' eyes as if they were criminals. that's funny.

Other Comments by wice

2. Comment #19620 by sarpulhu on January 29, 2007 at 12:25 am

Or other copy at youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bcbTJgeJrw0

Other Comments by sarpulhu

3. Comment #19623 by MacGruder on January 29, 2007 at 12:50 am

When will people learn that Fox News is not the place to put forward views contrary to conservative thought. The interviewers are experts in manipulating the "interview". I have no sympathy for people who appear on Fox News expecting to get a fair hearing. This interview is typical of debates that simply reinforce the views of those on both sides of the argument without leaving any possibility of progress in understanding. How many theists do you think were driven to re-think their views on religion after watching this piece? How many do you think had their views reinforced? Flemming walked into a trap here for which he was very unprepared.

Other Comments by MacGruder

4. Comment #19625 by Stewart on January 29, 2007 at 1:15 am

I have never before seen such an angry man demand from such a calm person an explanation as to why he is so angry...

Other Comments by Stewart

5. Comment #19626 by wice on January 29, 2007 at 1:33 am

MacGruber: i don't think that a single atheist will ever change the views of the theist. this interview was good because it shoves closet atheists a bit closer to standing up and speak their minds.

oh, btw, the funniest thing was when the interviewer claimed that brian "manipulated" these young people to say such things by promising them a not too expensive, but at least existing dvd, that they could easily buy in a videostore or on amazon. yes, that's "manipulation", unlike the promise of eternal bliss or eternal damnation for doing this or that.

Other Comments by wice

6. Comment #19627 by kfrancist on January 29, 2007 at 1:36 am

macgruder, it seemed to me that flemming actually did very well. and while nobody should ever expect to make anybody who watches fox news re-think anything, i think it's at least consciousness raising--nobody's changing their minds, but there's at least more awareness of the cause.

Other Comments by kfrancist

7. Comment #19628 by ear1grey on January 29, 2007 at 1:36 am

"But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven, he is guilty of an eternal sin." - Mark 3:29

If St. Mark is correct, then Brian Flemming is eternally damned, so Mr. Kaischs' closing words are particularly hollow.

"I hope you turn around." - John Kasich

Is he really allowed to keep his job after such an opinionated partisan rant?

Other Comments by ear1grey

8. Comment #19629 by kfrancist on January 29, 2007 at 1:40 am

"Is he really allowed to keep his job after such an opinionated partisan rant?"

that's why he has a job. that's what fox is all about.

Other Comments by kfrancist

9. Comment #19630 by Jared on January 29, 2007 at 1:46 am

I am, typically, loath to apologize for the actions of my less thoughtful countrymen. However, I once more feel that it is my duty as a rational, reasonable American to apologize to the world community for Fox News. Granted, Fox's Mr. Murdoch is an Aussie, but let's be realistic: America is where this crap flourishes and it is this that allows it to be pumped out to the rest of you. Again, my apologies.

Every sentence Kasich spoke was FULL of emotional impact words and 'spin' words. Brian did well to not address the garbage and to stick to his key points, although you could tell, by the end, that his patience was running out. And who could blame him?

The most disgraceful bit came right at the conclusion, when Kasich told Brian that he 'hoped he turned around' or whatever his exact words were, suggesting that he had 'erred' from the path of the 'true' faith, Christianity. Could you imagine the uproar if he had said something like that to a Jewish or Muslim guest? But because, to the Fox Newsites of the world, a lack of belief is not a position worthy of respect, Kasich gets away with it.

This stuff just angers me to no end. Thankfully, most of the people who watch that dreck already agree with it, so he's only preaching to the converted. Still, it's a shame that even they get such a negative and one-sided portrayal of the atheist movement.

Other Comments by Jared

10. Comment #19632 by aleprechaunist on January 29, 2007 at 2:07 am

Damn, Fox News must be very confident of its audience to feel it can present this as dispassionate journalism.. One can only hope it serves only a small section of the population.

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

11. Comment #19635 by BaronOchs on January 29, 2007 at 3:19 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FoxNews Guy you said "I deny the Holy Spirit"

Other Comments by BaronOchs

12. Comment #19636 by moudiwort on January 29, 2007 at 3:33 am

Watching Fox (Faux?) News makes me reconsider the possibilty of absolute evil.
But more seriously and this goes to Jared. It is indeed a tragedy that this kind of cheap propaganda "journalism" would fuel an equally dumb antiamericanism outside the US.
Please be assured, though, that there are people out there who don't assume that Fox News represents the ne plus ultra of American reasoning. ;-)

Robert (from Germany)

Other Comments by moudiwort

13. Comment #19637 by aoratos philos on January 29, 2007 at 3:48 am

Faux News is seen by millions, this is great exposure for the Blasphemy Challenge and Atheism as a whole.
Kaisch is just plain laughable as a journalist, however he does say he "wishes people would go look at it" referring to the Blasphemy Challenge website, so it can't be all bad !

Other Comments by aoratos philos

14. Comment #19640 by pholt on January 29, 2007 at 4:06 am

Granted, Fox's Mr. Murdoch is an Aussie

He's now an US citizen, has been for some years, so I'm afraid he's all yours.

Other Comments by pholt

15. Comment #19642 by ferfuracious on January 29, 2007 at 4:17 am

If you were God (and eternal torture were actually a just punishment) which one of those men would think was more deserving of Hell?

Other Comments by ferfuracious

16. Comment #19644 by Stewart on January 29, 2007 at 4:24 am

I expect Kasich will achieve both what he wants and what he doesn't, respectively, great righteous Christian anger at Flemming's antics and a lot of consciousness that this is going on (without god ever unleashing a thunderbolt). If there were such a thing as a truly neutral person, I feel watching this clip would bump that person into Flemming's camp, largely on the strength of Kasich's overbearing, authoritarian attitude. Flemming may have been a little nervous at the confrontation but he stuck to his guns, while Kasich was so transparently angry he couldn't really think straight.

Other Comments by Stewart

17. Comment #19649 by jonecc on January 29, 2007 at 5:14 am

In particular, the reason why it was important for Brian Flemming to agree to be interviewed is that otherwise the interviewer could have ranted on in the same way, and then explained how atheists are too scared to show their faces on TV and meet the argument.

Other Comments by jonecc

18. Comment #19651 by Luthien on January 29, 2007 at 5:29 am

The expressions on Brian's face were priceless! I'm glad he got his point across so well (in spite of an interviewer who wouldn't let his interviewee speak).

I just got a webcam for christmas, think I will go do the challenge now :-)

Other Comments by Luthien

19. Comment #19653 by TigerDunc on January 29, 2007 at 5:37 am

Actually this is just another day at Fox. Anyone who thinks that this is particularly outrageous or unbalanced should get hold of a copy of "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism".

www.outfoxed.org

Wait until you see what happens when one of the "journalists" really disagrees with one of their guests. This was nothing.

Other Comments by TigerDunc

20. Comment #19655 by melisande on January 29, 2007 at 5:50 am

"You're offering them a free DVD"
Of The God Who Wasn't There!!!

It's not like a new Wii or an iphone or something.

Other Comments by melisande

21. Comment #19662 by mindwise on January 29, 2007 at 6:24 am

I know it does not make a difference but i had to send myword@foxnews.com an email, maybe not your view but i'd like to share it with you all and maybe kickoff a 'nice' emailstorm of the much feared 'angry' atheists like yourself.
Regards,
Martijn

====
Dear reader,

It looks to me like foxnews has is not doing well on the "creating unbiased and neutral news" front.

Exactly who are the 'angry atheists (John Gibson, Friday, December 22, 2006)', it all seems in the 'ear' of the beholder.

Especially John Kasich's interview of Brian Flemming is full of prejudiced questions. If anyone looks angry in that particular interview, it has to be JohnK, because it is certainly not Brian who despite the tone and acusations of the interviewer manages to stay very friendly and patient.

Can i kindly ask the John's to stop taking 21century facts as 'attacks by angry atheists' and learn to seperate fact from fiction, it's really refreshing.

The 'branding' of the atheists as being angry should really only be done when a large majority of the atheists actually are angry, so with foxnews so persistant in this i would like to see the investigations/reports/polls with the used critera of these that justify foxnew's doing so.

Kind regards,

Martijn Teunisse



Other Comments by mindwise

22. Comment #19663 by wice on January 29, 2007 at 6:27 am

brian, next time someone mentions that "but many people do good things in the name of religion", please ask them "so you mean these people wouldn't do good things if they weren't desperate to get into heaven or afraid of going to hell?".

Other Comments by wice

23. Comment #19664 by yogibear on January 29, 2007 at 6:35 am

Ahh fox news

As good an example of an ateism christian debate as there is. Atheist calm and logical, Christian impassioned and annoyed.

At least its publicity, and maybe some people in the states will check out the rational response site and have thier own conclusions.

Other Comments by yogibear

24. Comment #19667 by Feuerbach on January 29, 2007 at 7:18 am

Eternal damnation. Or a DVD?

Hmmm, tough choice.


Fox news is the mouthpiece for the conservative ruling class in America who relies on the dumb conservative vote to keep them in power - who seem to be a very easy crowd to sell this kind of "news" to.

It's such a shame the majority of simple Americans cannot see they are being hoodwinked and bamboozled. Rather too easily in my view.

God bless ignorance.

Other Comments by Feuerbach

25. Comment #19670 by Riley on January 29, 2007 at 7:30 am

Check out Rupert Murdoch media ownership:
http://www.ketupa.net/murdoch1.htm

The highlights:
"Fox News", "The Weekly Standard", and the "New York Post" in the U.S.

"The Sun" in the U.K.

FOX, "The Daily Telegraph" and the "Herald Sun" in Australia.

all have about as much integrity, concern for accuracy, and intelectual balance as a tv-evangelist. Ruppert Murdoch is a cancer on the earth.


--

Other Comments by Riley

26. Comment #19672 by Ian on January 29, 2007 at 7:40 am

I know it is sarcastic, but when Kasich climed many people give up their lives for religion, I immediately thought: "Yeah, like on 9/11."

Congratulations to Brian Flemming. Keep banging that drum!

Other Comments by Ian

27. Comment #19673 by trillian on January 29, 2007 at 7:45 am

Great job by Brian ! The cause of Blasphemy Challenge got a lot of publicity, and the more unreasonable and angry the interviewer got, the better Brian looked.

The interviewer was ridiculous ("you give the kids DVDs !!!!") and as UNfair and UNballanced as an interviewer can get. Having said this, I do not appreciate comments like "Ruppert Murdoch is a cancer on the earth" (implicitly suggesting that the cancer be "removed") and over-the-top rantings about FOX. They're a conservative news channel, very often they suck, but hey: so what ! It's not the end of the world, it's freedom of speech, if you like it or not !

Other Comments by trillian

28. Comment #19674 by faouloki on January 29, 2007 at 7:47 am

I would argue that despite the infamy Fox has in the US, Murdoch's empire is nowhere near as bad in the UK. Sure Sky News and the Sun don't come anywhere near fair, but the Daily Mail and their TV counterparts ITN (ITV) I would say are much worse.

Other Comments by faouloki

29. Comment #19677 by Bob Johnson on January 29, 2007 at 7:58 am

Response to #19632 "One can only hope it serves a small section of the population."

Unfortunately you find Fox News playing on TVs in bars and restaurants everywhere. It is even found in my doctor's office where small children wait in pain for medical help. Fox News may well be where the next generation gets educated!

Other Comments by Bob Johnson

30. Comment #19680 by Lionel A on January 29, 2007 at 8:29 am

Riley and #19670
I am with you all the way.

This video clip was of yet another Fox presenter behaving in a boorish and overbearing manner shouting down Brian whilst he was trying to answer the questions posed. What an obnoxious scrap of humanity (but shows no signs of same) Kasich appears to be and an intellectual lightweight.

I watched an MNBC clip not long ago with some oik called Tucker Carlson who talked so much during the interview it completely negated the whole purpose of the other chap being there at all. Pity, I cannot recall the subject now.

What is it with these 'so full of their own wind' people? It seems like what they have to say is more important than their so called guest!

Other Comments by Lionel A

31. Comment #19686 by Mango on January 29, 2007 at 9:16 am

The interviewer essentially said, "But religions make people do good things." But as Dawkins has replied to such statements, and I paraphrase, "Yes, but I'm concerned about what's true!"

Other Comments by Mango

32. Comment #19688 by jefferson on January 29, 2007 at 9:37 am

Funny how Mr. Kasich accuses Brian of manipulating kids. Indoctrinating kids with irrational beliefs is manipulating! Brian is only trying to release them from their indoctrination, if they haven't released themselves already.

Other Comments by jefferson

33. Comment #19691 by RickM on January 29, 2007 at 9:57 am

I strongly agree with Mindwise. I think there should be an emailstorm. It does no particular good for us to express our outrage here amongst the "choir".

I think the more email/smail sent to these nuts the better. They need to know that there are more and more people who believe that their adherence to a bronze age fairy tail is ignorant and irrational.

Other Comments by RickM

34. Comment #19692 by NJS on January 29, 2007 at 9:59 am

I expected the tone of the interview and the atheist guy did well but what matters to me is that at the end of the day too many people will see that nad honestly believe the challengers will be damned.

As I keep arguing how are we supposed to have respectful dialogue with people who genuinely believe we are going to burn in hell for eternity?

Of course we know its nonsense but in the context of actually "wishing" it on a fellow human I find it despicable on every level.

Other Comments by NJS

35. Comment #19694 by Robert O'Brien on January 29, 2007 at 10:17 am

Flemming is a dishonest ass.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

36. Comment #19695 by Proud Okie Atheist on January 29, 2007 at 10:19 am

I absolutely LOVED Brian's here-we-go-again eye-roll! He conducted himself so well.

Faux Noise Channel's only job is conservative propaganda. I hope this time they gave more publicity than they recieved. My hope is that at least one person somewhere saw this interview and decides to check out the facts and realize they can give up superstition too!

Other Comments by Proud Okie Atheist

37. Comment #19696 by Robert O'Brien on January 29, 2007 at 10:31 am

My hope is that at least one person somewhere saw this interview and decides to check out the facts...

My good hayseed, if one checks out the facts he quickly learns that Flemming's "documentary" is an empty lunch pail. For example, the crank Robert Price cites laws concerning the Sanhedrin that postdate Jesus and the NT by several hundred years in a disingenuous attempt to discredit the NT narratives; he also cites anti-Christian polemics in the Talmud (again, postdating Jesus and the NT by several hundred years) when he asserts that there were attempts to "insert" him into history 100 years before the NT chronology.

I think it best if you stick to playing the banjo and courting your cousin, friend Atheist Okie, cuz' you appear to be out of your league here.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

38. Comment #19701 by blaine on January 29, 2007 at 10:46 am

Re: MacGruder

I disagree strongly. This interview will obviously have no positive impact on thoroughly convinced Christians... but close to nothing will. I think it very well could have a positive impact on thoughtful Christians with an open mind, and people right now seriously considering the proposals appearing in mainstream media thanks to RD, Dennett, Harris, and others. Somebody with an open mind will see that Flemming is calm and reasonable, and Kasich never considers any point made by Flemming, and blindly believes that Christianity is the unmitigated pinnacle of virtue and goodness.

Other Comments by blaine

39. Comment #19702 by aoratos philos on January 29, 2007 at 10:56 am

Robert O'Brien wrote: My good hayseed, if one checks out the facts he quickly learns that Flemming's "documentary" is an empty lunch pail.

The facts that Okie is referring to are those surrounding the whole atheist/theistic superstition debate in general not Brian's documentary.
Besides that, I've heard Brian mention that if he had his chance again there are a few things he would change in his documentary, how is this dishonest or disingenuous?

As for Bob Price, why don't you take him up on his points during his Sunday night show on www.freethoughtmedia.com

I think it best if you stick to playing the banjo and courting your cousin, friend Atheist Okie, cuz' you appear to be out of your league here.

Nasty... just a plain old ad hominem attack, did you get that stereotype from watching fox news? You need some manners fella!

Other Comments by aoratos philos

40. Comment #19703 by Proud Okie Atheist on January 29, 2007 at 10:56 am

Oh, I get it! Okie=hayseed=banjo=cousin-courtin'=out-of-league comment.
Shucks, I guess you put me in MY place.

I've never seen the DVD in question, and that isn't what I was commenting on anyway, Robert. I was simply pointing out that maybe, just maybe, someone would decide to see what the discussion is all about and possibly give up their superstition in favor of reason.

I agree now that my wording could have been better, but I seriously doubt I deserved such an epithet- and stereotype-laden rebuke.

Other Comments by Proud Okie Atheist

41. Comment #19707 by Robert O'Brien on January 29, 2007 at 11:09 am

Perhaps I was a little hard on you, Okie, but I find the swagger here repellent, especially since it is usually wed to recalcitrant ignorance.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

42. Comment #19708 by david hartley on January 29, 2007 at 11:14 am

hm ive emailed john kasich..i know...i know...probably a waste of time.

anyhow awaiting a response of some kind.

as regards fox news at least there is some exposure for atheists on this channel...it would be interesting to compare their level of coverage with the BBC for example..?

Other Comments by david hartley

43. Comment #19709 by Robert O'Brien on January 29, 2007 at 11:17 am

As for Bob Price, why don't you take him up on his points during his Sunday night show on www.freethoughtmedia.com

I would subject Price to the smackdown of his life. Unlike the rubes he courts with his erroneous arguments, I have studied Attic Greek (the precursor to Koine) and I am well versed in NT scholarship and Antiquity. (Even though mathematics/statistics is my field.)

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

44. Comment #19710 by aoratos philos on January 29, 2007 at 11:24 am

Robert O'Brien wrote: I would subject Price to the smackdown of his life. Unlike the rubes he courts with his erroneous arguments.

You seem very self assured as well as arrogant and aggressive. All the same, I could probably get you a formal debate with Dr Price if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is?

Send me a PM and an indication of the themes you wish to address.

Other Comments by aoratos philos

45. Comment #19711 by Robert O'Brien on January 29, 2007 at 11:29 am

Send me a PM and an indication of the themes you wish to address.

Done.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

46. Comment #19714 by Zaphod on January 29, 2007 at 12:23 pm

That interviewer was a contemptible tool. He just doesn't get the point of the blasphemy challenge. He just gives the typical religious response. See below.

1. Why do you want to take away their hope?
2. Religious people do good things?
3. Why are you so angry?

My Answers

1. Religion may give hope to some but it also segregates, indoctrinates and isolates alot of people.

2. SHUT UP. PEOPLE DO GOOD THINGS. NOT JUST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE OR JUST ATHEISTS BUT ANY TYPE OF PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING GOOD.

3. If any atheist is angry it maybe because when they where young they feel they where lied to about important stuff and told idiotic myths about sky daddies(god) and wizards(jesus).

All 3 points are irrelevant of religions truth. If it gives hope, does good or makes you angry it doesn't alter what is true.

Religious myths are obviously false to people if they think rationally unshackled by their faith.

If god is real or not we can't prove and may never be able to. If god does exist and is petty enough to care about people worshiping him then I deny him/her/it even more.

I deny the holy spirit, god, jesus, allah, vishnu, zeus, tom cruise and superman.

Long live the silver surfer. Galactus is comming.

j/k



or am I.

Other Comments by Zaphod

47. Comment #19717 by StephenH on January 29, 2007 at 12:28 pm

The closing comments from the Fox guy

Yeah, the reason it was all Christian people doing the welfare work and getting that basketball game organised is because their groups receive charitable status.

It's a bunch of people with a love of humanity and a desire to help the disadvantaged (those people can be religious or non-religious)

And from time to time, i'm sure they are throwing in a few offers to attend the various religious activities... such as bible reading groups.

Do they continue to extend their help and support towards those youngsters that refuse these invitations to join any additional groups (of a religious conotation)?

Aren't these people also on a recruitment drive in addition?

Other Comments by StephenH

48. Comment #19720 by Lionel A on January 29, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Something going on here with respect to accessing a poster's profile.

When clicking on any poster ID string one gets their profile except in the case of the aggressive and arrogant Robert O'Brien, clicking on his ID string brings up the profile of the immediately preceding poster. Why is this?

Other Comments by Lionel A

49. Comment #19721 by sankekorafi on January 29, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I sent my e-mail. I hope they get a ton: more atheists than they knew existed!

At any rate, I made the point that no person who actually believes in the holy spirit would say otherwise for the sake of a DVD and that the teens they call subverted are actually already atheists, and that they are giving comfort to a group of teenagers who think that if they come out everyone in their circle of friends, family and society would, in their mind, turn against them. I also pointed out that they have perfectly good communities themselves so the should let the nonbelievers have our own. But then, I don't think everyone will agree with everything I said... lol

Other Comments by sankekorafi

50. Comment #19723 by mintcheerios on January 29, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Haha, Brian Flemming is the king.

Other Comments by mintcheerios