RELATED: Bill Maher Round Table Discusses The Dangers Of Religion

Even though Maher produced a documentary four years ago whose title was literally a portmanteau of “religion” and “ridiculous”, he admitted that atheism isn’t even a hobby of his. “That’s the nice thing about being an atheist, it takes up so little of your time,” he said. But Maher expressed concerns about the “growing trend” of people trying to equate religion, which is based in faith and things claiming to be beyond normal human comprehension, with evidence-based science. Charles Darwin may look like the kind of person we’ve always pictured a god to be, but when was the last time someone organized meetings or built huge buildings in reverence to Darwinism?

Maher did concede that atheism is not necessarily a bastion of pure intellectualism, but equating belief with “nonbelief” is not rational thinking.

“We’re not two sides of the same coin, and you don’t get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens.”

Maher said he would be perfectly willing to believe in a god or Jesus if there was any evidence to back up their existence, but until he sees any sign that they exist, he’s perfectly content to stay on the side of doubt. But, Maher concluded, if people are going to keep insisting atheism is a religion, then atheists should logically be able to get away with the same things religious people do on a daily basis. He brought up how Mitt Romney‘s late father-in-law was posthumously baptized, and donned a magician’s hat to perform an “unbaptism” ceremony. An unbaptism, for those unfamiliar with the practice, is very much like an unbirthday, except with far less tea.

RELATED: Bill Maher: All Religions Are ‘Magic Tricks’ But Mormonism Is ‘Novelty Shop’ Magic Trick

Maher mumbled a string of nonsense words, including what I’m pretty sure was a line from Harry Potter, and finally declared, “I call upon the Mormon spirits to leave your body the fuck alone.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

RELATED: Bill Maher’s Christmas Eve ‘Jesus F**ked Tim Tebow’ ‘Satan Is Tebowing’ Tweet Stirs Outrage

Considering the content of Maher’s yuletide Tebow tweet, this is all rather mild, but it should still have the desired effect of making people who already don’t watch HBO threaten to stop watching HBO.

Bill Maher’s status as deliberate provocateur is well-documented, and much of the criticism he receives is well-deserved, but in this case, Maher is actually being funny and making some legitimate observations. His Christmas Eve tweet enraged some Christians, one of whom responded by wishing Maher would burn in Hell, but that tweet, plus his subsequent lampooning of the “Tebowing” meme, aren’t necessarily anti-Christian.

While Bill Maher often engages in the kind of smug atheism that gives the group a bad name, his critique of Tebow is far from groundbreaking, and as I’ve said before, has some resonance from a Christian point of view. His latest series of tweets can be seen as an additional critique of the “Tebowing” meme, in which people mimic Tebow’s endzone pose, not as a religious expression, but as a jokey trend along the lines of “planking” or “owling.”

If you don’t understand these internet memes, don’t feel bad. My kids had to explain them to me. Suffice it to say that the “Tebowing” trend, at best, trivializes Tebow’s Christian beliefs, but in doing so, also accuses Tebow of the same. Sure, Tim Tebow has every right to thank God for his touchdowns, but others are also free to ask whether God is investing time and energy into getting him into the endzone, or as Maher’s original tweet suggests, forsakes Tebow whenever the Broncos lose.

Maher has also cannily (if profanely) observed that the Tebow worship that has swept much of the nation can easily veer dangerously close to idolatry.

That is not to say that Bill Maher isn’t ecstatic at the thought of all this Christian apoplexy over his Tebow campaign, but in this case, there’s a little more to it than that.

(h/t The Blaze)

Excerpts from the interview have been published on the magazine’s website, and they illustrate that even leading up to his death, Hitchens never wavered from his beliefs. Here he is on the relationship between the Catholic Church and Nazism.

“[I]f you’re writing about the history of the 1930s and the rise of totalitarianism, you can take out the word ‘fascist’, if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with ‘extreme-right Catholic party’.

“Almost all of those regimes were in place with the help of the Vatican and with understandings from the Holy See. It’s not denied. These understandings quite often persisted after the Second World War was over and extended to comparable regimes in Argentina and elsewhere.”

Hitchens recalled a fiery debate he had with former prime minister Tony Blair over not just religious faith, but also about the effectiveness of Catholic charities.

“You can only have one aim per debate. I had two in debating with Tony Blair. The first one was to get him to admit that it was not done – the stuff we complain of – in only the name of religion. That’s a cop-out. The authority is in the text. Second, I wanted to get him to admit, if possible, that giving money to a charity or organising a charity does not vindicate a cause.

“I got him to the first one and I admired his honesty. He was asked by the interlocutor at about half-time: “Which of Christopher’s points strikes you as the best?” He said: ‘I have to admit, he’s made his case, he’s right. This stuff, there is authority for it in the canonical texts, in Islam, Judaism.’

“At that point, I’m ready to fold – I’ve done what I want for the evening.”

Finally, Hitchens has been criticized by both the left and right for his views, and it has not been easy to pin down exactly where he stands. Dawkins asked him about this in the interview, and Hitchens explained how everything he has stood up for has been consistent with one belief.

“I have one consistency, which is [being] against the totalitarian – on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy – the one that’s absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do.”

h/t New Statesman

This was a man, you’ll recall, who once wrote that Mother Teresa — a woman whose name has become pop culture shorthand for all that is selfless and saintly — “a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.” This was a man who described himself as an “anti-theist” at a time and in a nation where a politician can be deemed not quite Christian enough, or not the right sort of Christian. And this was a man who voiced his support for the War in Iraq, who spoke out against “fascism with an Islamic face,” a man who flipped off Bill Maher‘s audience before crisply informing that salivating mob that not one of them was as smart as President George W. Bush.

He’s a tough one to pin down, a person and a thinker neither team can firmly and definitely claim as their own. And that’s what makes remembering him difficult, as he resists becoming a platform for any agenda or manifesto that is not his own. It should come as no surprise that Hitchens’ take on religion and theism have featured fairly prominently in how many of chosen to look back on his life and his work. If you’re a person whose religious faith colors much of your worldview, how do you go about memorializing someone whose views were, in part, shaped by the lack thereof? It’s an interesting thing to see.

Take, for example, Reuters, which ran its announcement of Hitchens’ death under the headline “Atheist intellectual Christopher Hitchens dead at 62.” And Michelle Malkin, who writes about Hitchens’ life and death with tenderness (and a fun holiday anecdote), but is sure to note his “extreme atheist stunts.” The commentors on the Free Republic’s thread about his death, of course, devote much virtual ink to his anti-theism, some with what are sure to be the greatest of intentions, others… much less so.

But what we do (or do not) worship is just one factor in shaping our thoughts, aren’t they? David Frum‘s very funny, very touching remembrance, for instance, includes not one mention of atheism, faith, or religion. But it does include this, and for that I’m forever grateful:

For the very uncharacteristic fee of $200, he and David Brooks divided a page to settle the question, who were sexier: left-wing women or right-wing women? Christopher championed right-wing women, and told the story of the erotic thrill he had experienced when Margaret Thatcher had slapped him on the bottom with a rolled-up newspaper.

And Alex Massie makes the important distinction that “though he was often a contrarian, he was rarely a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. There was a point to it all and it was not a pose struck for the sake of, well, just striking a pose.”

Big Hollywood’s John Nolte echos that sentiment, writing that the “word being tossed about in reference to the passing of Hitchens is “contrarian,” and that strikes me as a little unfair. Hitchens could be infuriating and even wrong, but there was nothing dishonest or insincere about the man. Though it’s not the perfect definition of contrarian, I don’t believe for a second that Hitchens ever once took a stand simply to be provocative or contrary.”

As for where Hitchens’ career takes him now (Tongue only partially in cheek, there. Writers’ jobs don’t end when they die, after all), that’s anyone’s guess. But one sentiment echoing online among editors of faith is “if he is wrong — and I hope he is — I hope he’s pleasantly surprised.” And across the hall from Margaret Thatcher.

RELATED: Muppets Director Hits Back At Eric Bolling: ‘No, The Muppets Are Not Communists’

An age old axiom for polite discussion is that two topics one should always avoid at a dinner party are politics and religion. And this is the time of year where, especially of late, the end of the year Christmas cheer seems to come with a spirited discussion over religious iconography in the public square. In the following clip, Barker did not hedge in explaining why he found the nativity scene so offensive, saying it represented “an insult to human nature that we are all doomed and damned,” before being interrupted by a defensive, though polite Bolling, who tried to get the conversation back to the much less interesting discussion of of how different local municipalities govern and free speech.

But Barker seemed eager to insult Christianity, saying again “what an insult that we are degraded to be praising the exact Jesus created a place of hell.” Bolling quickly interjected, reminding his guest that it was “his show” and that he would not abide having a guest denigrate the name of Jesus Christ on his show. Something about love thy enemy?

Watch the clip below, courtesy of FBN:

RELATED: Bill O’Reilly Debates Atheist Author: Judeo-Christian Belief Is A Reality ‘On Which This Country Is Founded’

Chopra, who has made the subject spirituality his life’s work, has a new book out called War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality. “So what do you say to a guy like Dawkins?” O’Reilly wanted to know, before asking if Chopra had ever spoken with Dawkins face-to-face. “Oh, yes,” Chopra replied. “He ambushed me when I was at Oxford. He used a subterfuge. Channel 4 called me, said ‘We want to do an interview,’ I went to the interview… and it was him!”

O’Reilly had one question: “Why didn’t you kick his butt?”

Chopra later added that he believes Dawkins uses his scientific credentials to “mask his bigotry.” The men also agreed that Dawkins (and presumably others of his stripe) often resorts to — highly unscientific — emotional responses to discussions rather than simply relying on fact and logic.

Watch the segment, from Fox News:

During their conversation, O’Reilly summarized the book’s aim as encouraging its readers to focus on science (which the host applauded) at the expense of God and religion — an assessment with which Dawkins took issue. “No, this is a book about science,” said Dawkins. “It doesn’t talk about God.” O’Reilly wasn’t buying it. “It mocks God,” he said. “I looked at it.” But Dawkins insisted that the book includes no mockery of the sort.

Later on in the discussion, however, O’Reilly gleefully shouted “A-ha!” when Dawkins referred to, in this instance, Christianity as a myth on par with Aztec or Egyptian mythology and belief. O’Reilly responded by calling Judeo-Christian belief not a myth but a reality “on which our country is based” — an idea that Dawkins seemed to find entirely absurd.

O’Reilly then brought up the idea that the worst regimes in history were “atheistic,” pointing to dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. “That has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not,” Dawkins insisted, adding that he didn’t want to enter into a “shouting match” over who is “more evil.” “Are we shouting?” asked a rather amused-looking O’Reilly.

“What I do think,” Dawkins continued, “is that there is a logical connection between believing in God and sometimes doing evil things.”

“Sometimes, absolutely,” O’Reilly agreed. “You see that in the Holy War, in the Jihad.”

Now, is it just us, or is O’Reilly trying to make the conversation a little “spicier” than it ended up being? In any case, Dawkins seemed to want absolutely no part in it — to something of a funny degree.

Watch the segment for yourselves, via Fox News:

Pastor Stahl’s “Living Water Church” exists solely online and consists of a Blogspot blog that accepts donations via PayPal. A quick scan of his biography shows that Stahl, who lives in South Florida, not only harbors a great dislike for atheists, but he isn’t too fond of Catholics either. Also, “In the 9th grade while attending Msgr. Edward Pace High School, I DID fail the physical exam when I tried out for the football team due to a “rapid heart beat.”) I DID however , pass a physical exam for the gymnastics and wrestling teams in my sophomore year at Hialeah High School.” And now you know.

So, why a registry? Because people who do not believe in or worship a deity are just as bad as sex offenders or terrorists and the public needs to be protected from them:

Brothers and Sisters , I have been seriously considering forming a ( Christian ) grassroots type of organization to be named “The Christian National Registry of Atheists” or something similar . I mean , think about it . There are already National Registrys for convicted sex offenders , ex-convicts , terrorist cells , hate groups like the KKK , skinheads , radical Islamists , etc..

This type of “National Registry” would merely be for information purposes . To inform the public of KNOWN ( i.e., self-admitted) atheists . For example , let’s say you live in Colorado Springs , Colorado , you could simply scroll down ( from the I-Net site /Blog ) I would have , to the State of Colorado , and then when you see “Colorado Springs” , you will see the names of all the self-admitted atheist(s) who live there ( e.g., if an atheist’s name happened to be “Phil Small” ) . The individual’s physical address , and other known personal information would NOT be disclosed ( though , perhaps a photo could be ) .

Now , many (especially the atheists ) , may ask “Why do this , what’s the purpose ?” Duhhh , Mr. Atheist , for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net – to INFORM the public ! I mean , in the City of Miramar , Florida , where I live , the population is approx. 109,000 . My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists ! Perhaps we may actually know some . In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism . Or perhaps they are radical atheists , whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh’s , in that case , if they are business owners , we would encourage all our Christian friends , as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be “feeding” Satan .

Frankly , I don’t see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they’re actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the ‘closet.’ ) .

Ball’s in your court, Mr. Atheist.

h/t Pastor Mike’s blog via freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula

Well, his anti-religion religion. Alm is a Pastafarian, which is a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sound ridiculous? It’s meant to be. Besides, as a Pastafarian would point out, your magic space man isn’t so realistic either.

The Church has its origins in a letter written in 2005 by Bobby Henderson, a 24-year-old who wrote an open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education regarding their plans to begin teaching Intelligent Design in addition to the “theory” of evolution. In his satirical letter, he concurred and argued that his belief, that a “flying spaghetti monster” created the universe, should be taught as well, arguing that “we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world.”

The letter became an Internet phenomenon and soon, an entire ironic “religion” had been created based around Henderson’s jokey “belief.”

Which brings us back to Alm. Alm, an Atheist, saw that Austrian law allowed headgear in license photos only if it was for religious purposes. He set about making his own satirical point by asking to wear a pasta strainer to represent his Pastafarianism. The authorities responded by requiring he seek a medical evaluation to prove he was “mentally fit” to drive. However, he passed and now, three years later, his license is as you see it above.

The best part? Not only has Alm won a small victory for religious freedom everywhere (including the freedom to go without), he’ll forever win any bar conversation about who has the strangest photo on their license.

(h/t BBC via Ben Popken)

American Atheists (Atheists.org) organized an aerial banner campaign to get out the good news that the “good news” is all a lie, and while the organizers explain it as an awareness campaign, it sure looks a lot like proselytizing. Despite his support for separation of church and state, and for pushing back against the religious right’s notion that America is a fundamentally Christian nation, Hartmann gets ahold of the idea of atheism as religion, and won’t let go.

Hartmann points out that saying America is a secular nation is not the same thing as calling it a “God-less” nation, whereas it is quite similar to promoting any other belief system. Atheists are organized, evangelical, and have a belief system, Hartmann argues. The only thing he leaves out is the characteristic persecution complex, although as religious oppression goes, not winning an Emmy is pretty weak.

Wingrove disputes the idea that atheists have a belief system, and gets more than he bargained for. “We’re not actually seeing each other,” Hartmann tells Wingrove.”The retinas of our eyes are converting photons into electrical impulses that are converted into chemical impulses, and our brains are reassembling these things. We’re not actually hearing things, so how do you know anything is real?”

Whoah. I think Hartmann just fed that guy the red Matrix pill.

Wingrove responds, “Well, we just have to…” What? Have faith? “…assume we are actually here.”

“That’s a belief system,” Hartmann says. Case closed.

Here’s the clip, from RT America’s The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann:

First off, in case you’re curious, I am not an Atheist. I consider myself an Agnostic (yes, I’m imagining receiving the same boos that Joel McHale’s character Jeff got when he smugly admitted the same on Community). My basic thinking is, if human beings can’t even figure out their DVRs (mine cut off the first few minutes of that and every other episode of Community), chances are good that they can’t comprehend the origins of the universe either. However, since I live in the God-less city of New York, many of my friends are Atheists. And, like them, I think that Family Radio is perpetrating a massive hoax on the poor, lost, and trusting.

I remember a month or so ago when I first saw a giant Family Radio-funded billboard in my beloved city. It wasn’t small. And it wasn’t somewhere obscure. It was a giant, brightly colored thing stationed just a couple blocks away from Penn Station. I’d heard the rumblings of the “May 21st” theory before, but this was the first time that I realized just how big it was. And, thusly, how hilarious it was. I instantly joined in the chorus of “rational” people mocking those who had been misled that, on an upcoming Saturday, they’d be sucked into the sky to hang out amongst the clouds. I mean, what could be more ridiculous? However, a couple weeks later, something happened that dampened my fun.

I was on NPR’s website listening to the cast recording of The Book of Mormon (more fun at the expense of the faithful, I’m afraid), when I saw that they had a story about those that believe in this coming Rapture. It promised interviews with them and I rushed to listen, expecting to have a good chuckle. A few seconds in though, my smile started to fade. And then, when I reached the interview with a young couple, it completely vanished.

From NPR.org:

“‘Knowing the date of the end of the world changes all your future plans,’ says 27-year-old Adrienne Martinez.

She thought she’d go to medical school, until she began tuning in to Family Radio. She and her husband, Joel, lived and worked in New York City. But a year ago, they decided they wanted to spend their remaining time on Earth with their infant daughter.

‘My mentality was, why are we going to work for more money? It just seemed kind of greedy to me. And unnecessary,’ she says.

And so, her husband adds, ‘God just made it possible — he opened doors. He allowed us to quit our jobs, and we just moved, and here we are.’

Now they are in Orlando, in a rented house, passing out tracts and reading the Bible. Their daughter is 2 years old, and their second child is due in June. Joel says they’re spending the last of their savings. They don’t see a need for one more dollar.

‘You know, you think about retirement and stuff like that,’ he says. ‘What’s the point of having some money just sitting there?’

‘We budgeted everything so that, on May 21, we won’t have anything left,’ Adrienne adds.”

This was the first time it hit me. These are real people and if (ugh, when) May 22nd comes and the world hasn’t ended, there lives will have. Some of these people will have absolutely nothing.

Organized religions, as silly as they sound to those that don’t prescribe to them, are just a way for people to find comfort in this tough life. Through all the dirty words and crude jokes, that was the message of the aforementioned Book of Musical and it’s true. Religion gives people comfort and that’s a good thing. We all need it. Atheists find it in scientific theories and progress. Devout people find it in ancient stories. And these May 21st believers were just unlucky enough to find it from the mouth of a scam artist. They made a mistake and got dealt a bad hand and, like when that happens to any of us, they deserve a little help. What if Atheists were the ones to do it for them?

You hear so much about religious people doing good deeds and selflessly helping others. They become good people because their holy books and religious leaders tell them to. At least, that’s what many people prejudiced against Atheists argue. They wonder how anyone can truly be good without concrete guidelines set down for them. Atheists know that that’s ridiculous. Unless you’re a sociopath, we all know that being good to others is a good thing without the help of giant men in the sky saying so. This is a perfect chance to prove that. What I’m proposing is that some Atheist group creates a charity to help those who have lost all of their money following Harold Camping and his church.

Now, I’m obviously not the first person to think of an Atheist-backed charity, and many already exist. However, as more and more media organizations pick up Rapture fever and report on tomorrow’s coming non-event, the possible exposure becomes bigger and bigger. There is huge potential for sending a positive message here.

So, yes, Atheists can continue to make fun of these people (I’m sure I’ll be guilty of making a few more jokes this weekend as well) but they can also do more. I mean, isn’t smugness why so many of the faithful hate us faithless in the first place? This can be a huge step to finally showing that Atheists can be just as good and kind as the rest.

Perhaps, through this, they can finally make believers out of the believers.

(Photo via Spencer Platt/Getty Images. Please listen to the entire NPR story I mentioned here. It’s heartbreaking.)

David Asman asked Coulter why Obama recognized all of these Muslim holidays but failed to issue a statement on Easter. Coulter dismissed it as an oversight and joked it was “probably because they were busy looking for the President’s birth certificate.” Instead, Coulter suggested the real worry with Obama is not that he’s Muslim, but instead that his religion is the environment and that he thinks Earth Day is just as important as Easter.

Following a strange conversation about liberals believing worms should be treated as well as human beings, Coulter was optimistic about Republican chances in 2012 against Obama, since when you follow liberal policies “disaster ensues and re-election becomes more difficult.” And despite singing the praises of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, she backed down from an earlier prediction, and now thinks Mitt Romney would be able to beat Obama too.

Watch the clip from Fox Business below:

Recently, O’Reilly answered those critics, in a web-only video response to a question from an “O’Reilly Premium” member, by asking, “Where’d the Moon come from?”

Here’s O’Reilly’s response to the “pinheads” who criticized him:

At the time, I thought that O’Reilly was being unfairly maligned, since his argument didn’t rest simply on the existence of the tides, but on their clockwork regularity. That fact doesn’t make his argument any more compelling, but it does exonerate him of lunar ignorance. The logic O’Reilly employs goes something like this: when you wake up in the morning, and see your car in the driveway, you know someone built it. You don’t think it just appeared there by accident. The regularity of the tides demonstrate a similar machine-like quality. The difference is that your car has its maker stamped right on the front of it.

If it didn’t, you might fall to your knees and assume that God put the car there. Or, you might assume that the car’s existence was the result of many processes that are evident in its construction. Either assumption eventually leads to a point of origin that we simply can’t understand, and probably never will. It is at this juncture that the argument between deists and atheists becomes comical. As I’ve said before, believing that there is no God is about as useful as believing there is one.  Both sides insist that they know something that is currently unknowable.

O’Reilly’s response makes the decent point that much of our scientific understanding rests on articles of faith (history is rife with comically off-base scientific “certainty”), but he’s wrong to suggest that science and religion rely equally on faith. Science is the decoder ring to the impenetrable poetry of life as we know it, and its use is not mutually exclusive to a belief in God.

Albert Einstein seems to almost agree with O’Reilly. He described man’s relationship to God this way:

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

Great job, Einstein! Did you come up with that yourself?

I would ask O’Reilly (and Einstein), once the author of the books, or the maker of the moon, is revealed, who made that dude? Can God create a Factor segment that proves He is a pinhead?

This is not a mockery of religion, or faith, or science. Even solipsists have to get up every day and go to work. It is the smug certainty required to submit proof that God exists, or that He (or She) doesn’t, a quality evident in some deists, and all atheists. If you could prove the existence of God, he wouldn’t be God. If you could prove God didn’t exist, you would be God. Everything in between is, to some degree, a matter of faith.

Alisyn Camerota and Dave Briggs were joined by Rick Marazzani, the creator of the book, as he tried to explain how his book can help children celebrate Christmas. Or, I guess, just Mas, right? Right?

You know what…I can’t do it. I can’t make snarky comments here. This was just kind of a sweet little segment. Good on Fox & Friends for having Marazzani on and letting him say his piece. Good on Marazzani for making the book and sounding like a good, rational guy. Good on everyone for remembering that Christmas is a great time of year, whether you think of it as a time to celebrate a guy named Jesus or just a day you get to relax and be with the people you love.

(h/t Breitbart.tv)

Though Kelly greets Silverman by playfully saying, “Way to ruin Christmas, Dave,” their conversation is generally light on cutting comments. Silverman says the purpose of his billboard is “to make a point that Christmas doesn’t own the solstice,” as well as “to make atheists who are in the closet come out.” Kelly points out that many religious people have doubts, and asks Silverman why he’s trying to “pull [people] out of their faith if they’re wrestling with it.”

Silverman, though, responds by saying that he’s trying to urge closet atheists to come clean, rather than to force anyone to do anything. Kelly and Silverman then move on to a discussion of free speech—they conclude that American Atheists have a right to post their anti-Christmas billboard, just like Christians have a right to put up Santa decorations—and briefly touch on the “war on Christmas.” Watch the dialogue below.

On the topic of prayer, Hitchens noted that the prayers about his cancer—both the people praying for his health and those who have “lavish websites… praying for me to suffer and die”—are meaningless to him, even “Everyone Pray for Hitchens Day,” which he says has been designated to be the 20th of September. “I don’t think souls or bodies can be changed by incantation– or anything else, by the way.”

One month later, the God is Not Great author hasn’t changed his tune: ”I shall not be participating” in “Pray for Hitchens Day,” he told the Associated Press. The article continues, saying:

The way the English-born Hitchens sees it, the people praying for him break down into three basic groups: those who seem genuinely glad he’s suffering and dying from cancer; those who want him to become a believer in their religious faith; and those who are asking God to heal him.

Hitchens has no use for that first group. ”’To hell with you’ is the response to the ones who pray for me to go to hell,” Hitchens told AP.

He’s ruling out the idea of a deathbed change of heart: ”’Thanks but no thanks’ is the reply to those who want me to convert and recognize a divinity or deity.”

It’s that third group — people who are asking God for Hitchens’ healing — that causes Hitchens to choose his words even more carefully than normal. Are those prayers OK? Are they helpful?

”I say it’s fine by me, I think of it as a nice gesture. And it may well make them feel better, which is a good thing in itself,” says Hitchens.

Those healing prayers have no effect on Hitchens himself, however. He understands that keeping a positive attitude is important for any cancer patient—”But incantations, I don’t think, have any effect on the material world.”

By taking this stance, Hitchens is giving both his supporters and his detractors what they want. His advocates will appreciate that he isn’t abandoning his principles, even in the face of death, while his critics will cite today’s comments as yet another example of Hitchens’s arrogance and ungratefulness. Either way, I think I speak for many people when I say that regardless of my personal opinion of Hitchens, I hope he recovers—and that while he may not be in my prayers today, he will certainly be in my thoughts.

The center question of the conversation, with Maher defining it, was whether non-atheists were delusional– a topic that came up after Cupp admitted that she suspected President Barack Obama was an atheist, too. Maher argued that religion was the cause of “all wars,” in which he included communism, “a state religion.” Avlon offered that the term “religion” for what Maher was attacking was wrong– it was “absolutism, ideology, and extremism” that were behind the forces Maher was citing. Booker took it a step further, telling Maher “in your atheism, you are just as dogmatic and intolerant as any preacher.”

After an extensive back-and-forth in which Maher declared himself the only person on TV attacking religion and Cupp gave him several examples of liberal figures opposing religious practices, Maher kept it topical by asking everyone, “let’s move on to Stephen Baldwin.”

The full round table discussion below:

S.E. Cupp‘s Losing Our Religion came out last week, and we talked to the frequent FNC and CNN guest about how the media covers religion, how Pres. Barack Obama handles Christianity and why an atheist would pick this topic to cover.

Mediaite: You probably get this question a lot, but throughout the book you describe yourself as being an atheist. What makes an atheist pick this topic to write about?

Cupp: I’ve always been fascinated by religion. I’m getting my Masters in religious studies, I’ve always studied religion and written about religion. Being an atheist doesn’t do anything to quash that fascination. And I’ve been asked a lot, ‘What business does an atheist have writing a book that defends Christianity, how could an atheist do that?’ I always respond ‘Very objectively.’ Because I’m writing about this from the outside and don’t really have a dog in this fight, I would hope it gives a little more credibility to the project than having some fundamentalist Christian write about attacks on Christianity.

“Christian America just does not see this President as a convincing supporter of faith. And I don’t blame them.”

Mediaite: But to play Devil’s Advocate a little here, why would you want the media to talk more about God, if you don’t believe that concept exists?

Cupp: Well yeah, it’s not that I want them to talk about God more arbitrarily. I want them, when they do talk about God, to be a little more respectful of the fact that 90% of this country believes in God and 80% is Christian. To slap 80% of the country in the face on a regular basis and basically telegraph that their values don’t matter or their values are dangerous I think isn’t honest journalism. That’s not honest reportage. I think this country deserves a better more responsible press.

Mediaite: It’s not necessarily that you think they should cover it more, but there are concepts that some people believe but others don’t believe exists, like say birthers or 9/11 truthers. But you think they should cover God more in a positive way than they do now?

Cupp: But birthers and truthers are conspiracy theorists. And I’m sorry, even as an atheist I’ll tell you that Christianity is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a faith and a values system and again represents 80% of this country. That’s majority opinion, that’s not a conspiracy theory. So again, comparing Christianity to the birthers or truthers isn’t intellectually honest.

Mediaite: Recently in the news was is the National Day of Prayer, which the White House canceled the service of, and Franklin Graham was removed from event. But Pres. Obama also recently met with Billy Graham for the first time.

Cupp: They can’t cancel it. It’s legally mandated that the President sign the proclamation every year. Some presidents sign more than one a year. The president signed it last year and the liberal media made a big deal about it even though he was legally mandated to do so. No one made a big deal about the fact that he skipped the prayer services which most Presidents don’t do. But again that’s really indicative of the way the liberal media protects Obama, and he’s very uncomfortable with public worship. It’s almost like the media and the Obama administration are allies in this war right now.

Mediaite: Do you think Obama meeting with Billy Graham done anything to quell concerns that Christian Americans have?

Cupp: No. He’s met with rabbis, he apparently gets private sermons up at Camp David. All of that is fine. Much is private and not for public consumption which is odd in and of itself. The fact of the matter is the president is continually elevating atheism to the status of other faiths when they have nothing to do with one another. He’s constantly trying to preach superiority of science over faith. He’s made a number of gaffes that were interpreted by religious America as a slap in the face. Covering up religious insignia at Georgetown, just a terrible decision, but went virtually uncovered by the media. Skipping out on the National Day of Prayer, the guns and religion gaffe while he was campaigning. Christian America just does not see this President as a convincing supporter of faith. And I don’t blame them.

>>> NEXT PAGE: How cable news handles Christianity, pro-religion movies, looking to 2012.