Americans don't want an atheist president

I'm calling it by the appropriate science designation. If you want to continue to use it improperly then that's fine by me. As for your questions in your recent post, I can't address them without looking them up. And truthfully I'm not too interested in that subject matter to do appropriate reading on it. If I do find answers I'll share them. However now I'm just making you drive this thread off-topic so I'll continue the conversation in VMs.

..wait who said that?

I believe this goes back to the idea many religious people have, that atheists have no conscience.
"So if there's no God, why not steal and rape and murder?"

Muslims are at least answerable to their Allah, an atheist is answerable to no-one, especially if he's, arguably, "the most powerful man in the world."

Not saying that it's logical but if this poll is serious, then i can see some people thinking 'Oh, well someone who has some religion to respect has some kind of moral standard to uphold making them less likely to be completely untrustworthy.'

sorry, page 1. the discussion devolved to bigotry and fables, so i mostly skimmed after that.

First off, not all Christians vote for Christian/religious politicians. I'm a Christian, and in the last Canadian election, I voted for the NDP when the consensus pointed to the Conservatives as the more "Christian" party. For myself (and I'm sure many other Christians), I do not vote based on the religion of the candidate, but based on their ideals and their capability to do things. By the "Christians will vote for Christians" logic, wouldn't some pastor be the president/prime minster of the country by now, since more than half the nation is Christian? I love my pastor and all and respect his ideals and beliefs, but I simply don't think he'd make a good prime minister, so I wouldn't vote for him even if he IS running. Simple as that.

Am I discriminating against youth if I said that I'd prefer to have a president over 50? Simply put, some groups are more appropriate for certain jobs because of the experience and value systems that go into it. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer to have my dental work done by an actual dentist with years of experience in the field over a freshly gradded econ major because they've had the training and the experience. Likewise, I'd prefer to have someone who is adequately trained (though some will argue they aren't that at all) to be president over a 16 year old who's had no training and is still naive to many aspects of the world. Perhaps people feel that the set of values that Christians hold are more "reliable" than that of atheists. I don't know, I didn't vote in this survey. However, do keep in mind this isnt a survey of just Christians, but of Americans, which encompasses all religions.

As White said, why ISNT it okay for Christians to vote for Christians? Isn't that what an election is? Supporting someone who supports your view into power? Wouldn't it make sense then to vote for someone who is of your religious affiliation because by that standard, they should support the same things you do? I used to live in a primarily Indian-dominated region of Vancouver, and in that region, the Indian candidate always won. Am I going to call the Indians racist because they vote for the guy who's their nationality? Are the Indians going to call the other Indians who didn't vote for this guy a betrayer of the nation? You tell me.

Why do the atheists attack on christians (at forums etc) you ask? Because the christians hate everyone who isn't a christian, and it seems especially atheists.

Saw some English debate earlier. Here, I hope this helps:

The refers to a specific, while a refers to an unspecified amongst a said group.

Example: An atheist attacked a Christian on a forum. Meaning: One person who happens to be an atheist attacked another person who happened to be a Christian on some unspecified forums on the vast interwebs.

An atheist attacked the Christians on a forum. Meaning: One atheist attacked the specific group of people known as the Christians on some unspecified forum.

The atheists attacked a Christian on a forum. Meaning: A group of atheists attacking one poor fellow who is Christian on some unspecified forum.

Why do the atheists attack on Christians? Meaning: Why do the group of people that is known as the atheists (aka ALL the atheists within the group) attack on the group of people (ALL of the people within this group) that are called/characterized as Christians?

So why is it okay to bash Christians? Because some (some, NOT ALL) apparently hate with a passion and bash those who call themselves "atheists"?

I'll finish with this post:

http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php...post731482

I though I could as well ask few questions from religious people.

Do religious people believe that in order to be saved, they will have to subscripe to the church, cut their pen0rs, worship elves, start wars and go through the rituals?

Do religious people believe that humans and Dinosaurs lived in the same century?

If God isn't fake, what is the meaning of the word fake and fiction?

Why do you think that God would actually care about who has a religion or not? Because if he did, then he would have pointed at the RIGHT religion, wouldn't he?

Humans created dogs and different breeds of them using controlled evolution. Humans can create clones, plants and genetic manipulations. Are humans Gods now or what?

Why are you so scared of death, if you won't be there when it happens?

Why do you think most of the scientists are Atheists? Don't you ever consider the possibility, that it's cause of their higher IQ?

I think Noah hacked MINECRAFT. How can you make me confident that he wasn't? No way he can get that much wood in such an short time.

Here we have a post of a person claiming to be an atheist, as stated at the beginning of the thread. Does this mean that all atheists are utter jerks and douchebags and that every Christian should bash every single atheist out there for being idiotic? I also know that there's more than one atheist here. Can you guys tell me if you behave like this too??? (actually, you don't have to. I know the answer)So why is it okay to blanket bash the whole Christian belief because of one or two people who are a bit...extreme about their belief?

Ps. I can actually answer all of those questions, but that's for a whole other time.

-Doesn't even understand why people enjoy following a religion-

The issue is as old as dirt. First of all, definitions matter. Agnostic is someone who doesn't know (if they believe) if there is a god. An atheist believes there is no god. Atheism on its face, by definition, refutes the beliefs of every other religion (yes, other religion). It's a belief system born of opposition. While most major religions have gotten relatively lovey dovey in recent centuries and say things like "there is wisdom in other faiths," atheism is inherently opposed to other religions, instead of just in particular places of holy texts like the others are to one another. If a true atheist has anything good to say about a religion, they're just trying to seem less extreme than their premises.

The most off putting thing about atheists, compared with people of virtually any other belief system, is that they seem to think they're enlightened and categorically superior to everyone else, because they don't believe in "fairy tales" or anything arbitrary and without proof. The reality is that they arbitrarily believe in one thing - that there is no god - and they have no proof for it, and that seems to govern their entire view, putting them in direct philosophical opposition to a good majority of humanity. You've got a recipe for distrust and disdain, from both sides.

A person of faith can see that scripture or whatever myth they believe to be true has gaps in narrative, or even contradictions when read in the wrong context. A lot of religious traditions can seem stuffy, or absurd. They can see these traits in other faiths as well and accept them as part of the deal when most of the relevant historical factors in your faith/spirituality/worldview happened in the neighborhood of 2000 years ago. It's a shot of humility you rarely find in the average atheist with his mouth open.

The issue is as old as dirt. First of all, definitions matter. Agnostic is someone who doesn't know (if they believe) if there is a god. An atheist believes there is no god. Atheism on its face, by definition, refutes the beliefs of every other religion (yes, other religion). It's a belief system born of opposition. While most major religions have gotten relatively lovey dovey in recent centuries and say things like "there is wisdom in other faiths," atheism is inherently opposed to other religions, instead of just in particular places of holy texts like the others are to one another. If a true atheist has anything good to say about a religion, they're just trying to seem less extreme than their premises.

The most off putting thing about atheists, compared with people of virtually any other belief system, is that they seem to think they're enlightened and categorically superior to everyone else, because they don't believe in "fairy tales" or anything arbitrary and without proof. The reality is that they arbitrarily believe in one thing - that there is no god - and they have no proof for it, and that seems to govern their entire view, putting them in direct philosophical opposition to a good majority of humanity. You've got a recipe for distrust and disdain, from both sides.

A person of faith can see that scripture or whatever myth they believe to be true has gaps in narrative, or even contradictions when read in the wrong context. A lot of religious traditions can seem stuffy, or absurd. They can see these traits in other faiths as well and accept them as part of the deal when most of the relevant historical factors in your faith/spirituality/worldview happened in the neighborhood of 2000 years ago. It's a shot of humility you rarely find in the average atheist with his mouth open.

So atheists fundamentally aren't allowed to pay religions compliments?

The issue is as old as dirt. First of all, definitions matter. Agnostic is someone who doesn't know (if they believe) if there is a god. An atheist believes there is no god. Atheism on its face, by definition, refutes the beliefs of every other religion (yes, other religion). It's a belief system born of opposition. While most major religions have gotten relatively lovey dovey in recent centuries and say things like "there is wisdom in other faiths," atheism is inherently opposed to other religions, instead of just in particular places of holy texts like the others are to one another. If a true atheist has anything good to say about a religion, they're just trying to seem less extreme than their premises.

The most off putting thing about atheists, compared with people of virtually any other belief system, is that they seem to think they're enlightened and categorically superior to everyone else, because they don't believe in "fairy tales" or anything arbitrary and without proof. The reality is that they arbitrarily believe in one thing - that there is no god - and they have no proof for it, and that seems to govern their entire view, putting them in direct philosophical opposition to a good majority of humanity. You've got a recipe for distrust and disdain, from both sides.

A person of faith can see that scripture or whatever myth they believe to be true has gaps in narrative, or even contradictions when read in the wrong context. A lot of religious traditions can seem stuffy, or absurd. They can see these traits in other faiths as well and accept them as part of the deal when most of the relevant historical factors in your faith/spirituality/worldview happened in the neighborhood of 2000 years ago. It's a shot of humility you rarely find in the average atheist with his mouth open.

Thanks for elaborating what I was saying, although by definition you're correct, from my experience Agnostic isn't just on the fence, its that whether he exists or not is irrelevant. If god does exist he's probably exaggerated in most tales about him anyway. Personally I don't think having a higher power using science as a tool iis that farfetch'd

I'm not terribly surprised that people wouldn't want an Atheist president. When it comes to running for president, there's a general form to follow. Have a wife, have kids, have a pet, and be Protestant.

Wow, are you guys still arguing about this?.

No one s better than no one because of their faith nor Christians, Muslims, Atheist, etc. Every group have their flaws, for example my aunt is a lawyer and she just won a case against a "pastor" who rapped and drugged a 17 years old girl, 18 years sentence (oh yeah!), Muslims have stupid laws like throwing rocks to their wives or even kill them and Atheist have cold heart people that usually take rational actions but not humanitarian ones (but every group have this kind of people), so in general faith doesn't act an important role on people's morals.

And about the moral thing (instincts vs religion), the law is founded around the 10 commandments but the commandments come from a instinct or biological rule for example you don't have sex with your mother because you are feared of being castrated by your father (this is why some animals kills they childs like lions or kill old male childs) but sons know that if they don't have sex with her, their dad isn't going to kill them, we don't kill or hurt other people because of empathy, we aren't going to hurt anyone if we know what that person feels or what problems we can cause to their family or ourselves (but some emotions like rage destroy our self-control), so in general moral is just a common thinking that anyone can reach because we love our life and freedom (the basis of human rights) but i may accept that some people don't end having the same thinking of moral but a socially wrong one like serial killers or rapers but it's usually something more related to power or early age psychological problems or loneliness.

LONG WALL OF TEXT

1st paragraph: Many of the things you listed are flaws within the people, not from the religion they follow.
2nd paragraph: Seems like you took a bunch of random facts, hashed them together, then hoped that it would make sense. Do you have any hard evidence connecting the statements you've made? Of course not.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure this thread went on a massive tangent, isn't this a discussion about presidents and their religion?

Quick and rough etymology:
a- prefix means not, none, no.
-theos = god
-gnostic = knowledge

A-theist is someone who believes there is no god
A-gnostic is someone who claims no knowledge of god

And to KhainiWest, the belief that a higher power created the universe but after that point ceased to act on it or interfere is called deism. That's sort of like the higher power's existence being irrelevant. It's not the same as agnosticism though.

So atheists fundamentally aren't allowed to pay religions compliments?

My statement was a little strong, but what I'm trying to say is theres no way to philosophically oppose a faith more than atheism.

Fun fact about satanism, it doesn't inherently reject the reality of whatever faith it happens to be associated with, it just worships a different "power" in the same pantheon, to put things in polytheistic terms. It's like rooting for the Red Sox as opposed to the Yankees. To be a Red Sox fan you practically have to acknowledge the existence of the Yankees, after all. In the same metaphor, atheism is like hating not just baseball but sports in general. Agnosticism is not knowing (or maybe not caring) about sports.

An atheist could say its good that Faith Z is kind to the poor, but simultaneously they believe the opposite of Faith Z's most basic tenet. Muslims and Christians believe in the same god. That's a much smaller gulch between them than between either faith and atheism.

I think it's important to point out that all systems of belief are not equally different. Some are more different than others, depending on your frame of reference.

EDIT:

I'm pretty sure this thread went on a massive tangent, isn't this a discussion about presidents and their religion?

There have been studies before that said the minority Americans like least/distrust the most is atheists (not gays, not muslims, etc). Understanding just what it means to say you are an atheist is a good start to understanding why that's the case.

There have been studies before that said the minority Americans like least/distrust the most is atheists (not gays, not muslims, etc). Understanding just what it means to say you are an atheist is a good start to understanding why that's the case.

Speaking of hated minorities, where are the Jews in this study?

Well, somewhere less hated than atheists in the couple I recall. Relatively high standing overall in the US, at least compared to similar surveys I heard about in Europe. Google seems to like a paper from the University of Minnesota in 2006 regarding America, but the only comparative measure is respondents naming a group "most" objectionable. 6% for Jews, nearly 50% for atheists.

The issue is as old as dirt. First of all, definitions matter. Agnostic is someone who doesn't know (if they believe) if there is a god. An atheist believes there is no god. Atheism on its face, by definition, refutes the beliefs of every other religion (yes, other religion). It's a belief system born of opposition. While most major religions have gotten relatively lovey dovey in recent centuries and say things like "there is wisdom in other faiths," atheism is inherently opposed to other religions, instead of just in particular places of holy texts like the others are to one another. If a true atheist has anything good to say about a religion, they're just trying to seem less extreme than their premises.

The most off putting thing about atheists, compared with people of virtually any other belief system, is that they seem to think they're enlightened and categorically superior to everyone else, because they don't believe in "fairy tales" or anything arbitrary and without proof. The reality is that they arbitrarily believe in one thing - that there is no god - and they have no proof for it, and that seems to govern their entire view, putting them in direct philosophical opposition to a good majority of humanity. You've got a recipe for distrust and disdain, from both sides.

A person of faith can see that scripture or whatever myth they believe to be true has gaps in narrative, or even contradictions when read in the wrong context. A lot of religious traditions can seem stuffy, or absurd. They can see these traits in other faiths as well and accept them as part of the deal when most of the relevant historical factors in your faith/spirituality/worldview happened in the neighborhood of 2000 years ago. It's a shot of humility you rarely find in the average atheist with his mouth open.

Agnostic means just that you're not entirely sure - it's perfectly fine to be an agnostic atheists which believe that there is no God, but don't know if that is true. Most atheists fall into this category, and I wouldn't be surprised if most religious do the same. And Christianity "refutes" any other religion too: I don't see Christians saying that Greek mythology or Norse Gods exist. The thing to remember here is that the definition of atheism is the belief of lack in a higher power. That doesn't mean they deny that Gods exists, nor does it mean that they hate religion. A minority of atheists actually bother to discuss religion with other people like religion was a plague - and it sadly seems like you've only met those atheists.

Second paragraph is Russel's teapot, as from Wikipedia: "[Russel's teapot] is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion." They have a reason to not believe in any religion, because no scientific evidence is put forward from any of the religions which makes their religion true.

This isn't surprising, because religion strongly ties into politics, at least in America.

When you're voting for someone you of course want to feel like they share some of your opinions/beliefs because if they do then it makes it easier to support them. If they don't share the same beliefs as you, why would you vote for them? And in almost all cases, you won't.

Agnostic isn't just on the fence, its that whether he exists or not is irrelevant.

I associate myself most closely with Agnosticism, and this is how I feel. Rather, I feel that god most likely does/did exist, but it isn't in my best interest/worth my time to worship it, and I would rather create a path for myself than rely on another entity to make decisions for me. God just isn't that important regardless of the circumstances; many people use the analogy that god is a painter and we are the art, and that without the artist the art is worthless, but art generally doesn't have even a fraction of a fraction of the "AI (for lack of better analogy)" that we possess.

-Doesn't even understand why people enjoy following a religion-

They generally do not enjoy it, they are dependent upon it, in many cases. Belief of any sort to that level is on the same level as addiction.

I wonder whether you realize that "regulations to keep order within society" predate religion of any kind? In fact, they even predate humanity. All animals appear to have a "moral code", which is instinctive. Evolution created basic morality, not religion.

Sorry, I'm calling BS here, morality is formed purely on a personal level, otherwise nothing "bad" would ever happen. People that commit atrocities think that they are doing the right thing.

You mean the antitheists, not the atheists.

An important distinction, but not one that anyone seems to acknowledge. I would call Satellite an Antitheist, not an Atheist, by the way. An Atheist by definition just flat doesn't care at ALL and would never even have a reason to make any thread like this, because religion is a nonissue to them.

A-theist is someone who believes there is no god

Again, not quite, the "non" in this sense does not mean the person has an opinion on the subject, it simply means they are 100% neutral on it; either they are able to completely block out any and all effects of religion, or it has never even come up in their life so they don't even see it as a subject of debate, it literally does not exist to them.

This isn't surprising, because religion strongly ties into politics, at least in America.

When you're voting for someone you of course want to feel like they share some of your opinions/beliefs because if they do then it makes it easier to support them. If they don't share the same beliefs as you, why would you vote for them? And in almost all cases, you won't.

Does the Good Book have anything to say about nationalized healthcare? The situation in Iran? The national debt?

Personally I'd rather vote for a candidate based on his opinions on the actual issues facing the nation, rather than his opinion on things metaphysical.

If Bible would have anything to do with morals then how come other religions have morals too? Why does the Bible teach about moral? Yah, because the writers already had the moral typical to human beings when writing it.

If Bible would have anything to do with morals then how come other religions have morals too? Why does the Bible teach about moral? Yah, because the writers already had the moral typical to human beings when writing it.

..Different cultures have different beliefs and what you said isn't applicable at all. Although majority of religions created by the middle east/europe have essentially the same ideologies, it was all a set standard. Once again you're taking out of context that the bible didn't create morality, it encouraged it. Every religion has the same basic principle, you f`uck up in an inconsiderate fashion, some all mighty mother f`ucker will give you an infinity of time out torture.

You should probably look in African "beliefs" such as rape beads. To be honest most atheists dismiss god because they're only familiar with the orthodox one.

 Spoiler

[video=youtube;x5e_vNNkbCI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5e_vNNkbCI[/video]

The question shouldn't be "Is there" it should always be "what if".

..Different cultures have different beliefs and what you said isn't applicable at all. Although majority of religions created by the middle east/europe have essentially the same ideologies, it was all a set standard. Once again you're taking out of context that the bible didn't create morality, it encouraged it. Every religion has the same basic principle, you f`uck up in an inconsiderate fashion, some all mighty mother f`ucker will give you an infinity of time out torture.

You should probably look in African "beliefs" such as rape beads. To be honest most atheists dismiss god because they're only familiar with the orthodox one.

 Spoiler

[video=youtube;x5e_vNNkbCI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5e_vNNkbCI[/video]

The question shouldn't be "Is there" it should always be "what if".

Quote me where I claimed that you said that religion created moral. What you mean with encouraging it? Same as not doing anything for it, right? My point still stands. It's not like people were killing eachother mindlessly and when the Bible was suddenly written and got popular people somehow became better persons.