NationStates Jolt Archive

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/usa_todaygallup_1.html

So, once again atheists are at the absolute bottom of the list, under even homosexuals. More than half of the people surveyed rejected a well-qualified candidate solely on that fact. Who's persecuting who, again?


Clearly, something has to be done. There's got to be an organization somewhere that can fund an atheist third-party candidate with enough vigor to appear nationally. Someone needs to get out there and fight, appear on the talk shows, debate the talking heads, laugh with Jon Stewart. Because the only counter to ignorance is knowledge. We need someone to represent us, and show we're NOT just puppy-killing bastards or the faceless evil next door, that we won't purge all the Christians or burn bibles, that we're just like anyone else, with hopes and dreams and love and mercy.

I wish I could volunteer, but I don't reach the age limit. But I'm reaching out. There's got to be an atheist organization large enough to fund this..

A female hispanic atheist homosexual married for the third time. That's the candidate you need. I suggest you find a charismatic RASH Jenny somewhere, preferably one under 40. If nothing else, people like that generally have more integrity in their pinky than every US politician in the history of the country. Sorry 'bout the pis poor pun.

If Your Party Nominated A Generally Would You Be Comfortable
In Voting Well-Qualified Candidate For WH '08
A "Generally"? What's a Generally? :p

The idea of having to win the hearts and minds of morons annoys me. It's probably the only way to get more acceptance for us atheists, but people should know better. A candidate should try to avoid having morons vote for him/her, on principle, IMO.

And this is the problem with American politics. Here's a novel idea, how about representing the Amerincan people? Just a thought though! I don't wanna blow anyones mind completly outta their skulls with this Earth-shattering ideological philosophy here.

Instead of Republicans/Democrats voting on Republicans/Democrats because of their party, they should be voting for the person who obviously not only has the American people's best interest at heart, but America as well. Stop voting for someone because they are black or a female or hispanic or Republican/Democrat or a Jew/Catholic/'insert religion here' and start voting for them because they have American's and America's best interest at heart.

And this is the problem with American politics. Here's a novel idea, how about representing the Amerincan people? Just a thought though! I don't wanna blow anyones mind completly outta their skulls with this Earth-shattering ideological philosophy here.

Instead of Republicans/Democrats voting on Republicans/Democrats because of their party, they should be voting for the person who obviously not only has the American people's best interest at heart, but America as well. Stop voting for someone because they are black or a female or hispanic or Republican/Democrat or a Jew/Catholic/'insert religion here' and start voting for them because they have American's and America's best interest at heart.

The PROBLEM with that idea is people are morons who like a nice, well defined category for everyone, and carry assumptions along with those categories. And don't call this a fault of American politics: This happens EVERYWHERE.

Does it really matter what religion the president has? As long as they're not pressing it on the population then it really shouldn't matter.

A "Generally"? What's a Generally? :p

The idea of having to win the hearts and minds of morons annoys me. It's probably the only way to get more acceptance for us atheists, but people should know better. A candidate should try to avoid having morons vote for him/her, on principle, IMO.


Problem is, that destroys a good portion of the voter bloc.

Does it really matter what religion the president has? As long as they're not pressing it on the population then it really shouldn't matter.

It doesn't to me: It seems to matter to most voters, though.

Problem is, that destroys a good portion of the voter bloc.
Yeah. It's a necessary evil, I suppose.

Problem is that American atheists (or, to be more accurate, non-church-goers) tend to veer much more to the liberal side. This does not go down well with middle America, which is important regardless of what you might think (http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/143-4328_IMG.JPG).

I know I am generalising, but it does narrow the list of atheist candidates and exacerbate Middle America's distrust. Also, people tend to feel that atheists don't believe in anything, which is probably why nationalists/communists can get away with it.

What, Ralph Nader wasn't atheist enough for you? :p

What, Ralph Nader wasn't atheist enough for you? :p

He wasn't anything, really. He never really revealed his personal life.

He wasn't anything, really. He never really revealed his personal life.

He doesn't have one. I've met Ralph, and his idea of a good time is sitting alone in a room reading Jaques Derrida. He doesn't even drink.

Does it really matter what religion the president has? As long as they're not pressing it on the population then it really shouldn't matter.

as opposed to GWB?

all this religious bullshit... it's shameful people still need to believe in the big daddy figure in the sky nowadays, just because they are too fucking cowardly to take some personal responsibility for themselves

Do we really define a politician by his religion? Surely policies are more relevant?

Do we really define a politician by his religion? Surely policies are more relevant?


As stated previously, no and yes. What I want is not a candidate running to become president solely based on being an atheist: I want a candidate with a firm policy base running as an OPEN atheist, and willingly admitting this fact. The only way to break stereotypes is to out and out defy them. Why? Because, sadly, MOST PEOPLE DO DEFINE A POLITICIAN BY HIS RELIGION. Sad but true. What this is is an attempt to BREAK that.

Do we really define a politician by his religion? Surely policies are more relevant?
Right! It's his policies, not his lack of religion, that should put him at the bottom of the list.

Do we really define a politician by his religion? Surely policies are more relevant?


... or should be more relevant, should all voters have , you know, Brains, and care about real matters than about the big daddy in the sky

Do we really define a politician by his religion? Surely policies are more relevant?

Indeed so, we should never specify a particular religion for a potential president. The policies of the president should be the only thing that matters in the election. (I know it isn't, but it should).

As stated previously, no and yes. What I want is not a candidate running to become president solely based on being an atheist: I want a candidate with a firm policy base running as an OPEN atheist, and willingly admitting this fact. The only way to break stereotypes is to out and out defy them. Why? Because, sadly, MOST PEOPLE DO DEFINE A POLITICIAN BY HIS RELIGION. Sad but true. What this is is an attempt to BREAK that.

However, from what I can infer about the US, no atheist would get elected at present, hence why would a candidate profess to be one?

Within a democracy, the necessity to win votes is paramount, and thus, in a deeply religious country, no candidate will profess to Atheism. Surely the religious beliefs of all candidates should simply remain undeclared?

Right! It's his policies, not his lack of religion, that should put him at the bottom of the list.

Excuse me?

Either I'm missing something, or you suggest that an atheist candidate should be at the bottom of the list simply due to a lack of religion?

Can you spell inbred?

Do we really define a politician by his religion? Surely policies are more relevant?

QFT I was totally going to say that.

btw, the mission to "get religion out of politics" is probably not well served by people who want to "find an atheist for president"

However, from what I can infer about the US, no atheist would get elected at present, hence why would a candidate profess to be one?

Within a democracy, the necessity to win votes is paramount, and thus, in a deeply religious country, no candidate will profess to Atheism. Surely the religious beliefs of all candidates should simply remain undeclared?

The point of this isn't to win: The point is to break the stereotypes about atheists that make it impossible for us to win.

Surely Atheism counts as a religion, as the fervent belief that there is no God that defines it is a religious idea. Having a lack of religion would simply be never thinking about it.

cant we start a little slower?

how about an atheist with her own cooking show or an atheist video game or an atheist coffeeshop franchise?

QFT I was totally going to say that.

btw, the mission to "get religion out of politics" is probably not well served by people who want to "find an atheist for president"

This isn't about that, either, though that's also a worthy goal. See my previous post for WHY this is needed.

cant we start a little slower?

how about an atheist with her own cooking show or an atheist video game or an atheist coffeeshop franchise?

Not big enough. Atheists need something big and very, very public: A presidential campaign would work nicely.

MOST PEOPLE DO DEFINE A POLITICIAN BY HIS RELIGION.

In the US, apparently. Not in France. Religion here is a non-issue in politics. Of the dozen or so candidates taking part in the upcoming Presidential election, I have no idea what religion any of them is (except de Villiers, who's an ultra-conservative Catholic).

When I choose who I'm going to vote for, I'll almost certainly be casting my vote without knowing what my chosen candidate's religion is.

The point of this isn't to win: The point is to break the stereotypes about atheists that make it impossible for us to win.

Oh right. Fair enough. Bloody good idea in truth, were I American I'd help.:)

This isn't about that, either, though that's also a worthy goal. See my previous post for WHY this is needed.
why do you need to have an atheist in office? :confused:

oh, and I get the whole public display, I mean when I think atheist, outside of here, I think of Rosie O'Donnell and believe me, she shouldn't represent anyone.

why do you need to have an atheist in office? :confused:

oh, and I get the whole public display, I mean when I think atheist, outside of here, I think of Rosie O'Donnell and believe me, she shouldn't represent anyone.

Exactly. We need someone to represent atheism to the public with a GOOD face.

Surely Atheism counts as a religion, as the fervent belief that there is no God that defines it is a religious idea. Having a lack of religion would simply be never thinking about it.

It is not a religion; it's a belief.

Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life.

Wiki: Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)

Not big enough. Atheists need something big and very, very public: A presidential campaign would work nicely.

you havent been paying attention then. an atheist "rachael ray" would have incredibly more notice than a failed presidential campaign run by an ahteist outsider without major party affiliation.

The point of this isn't to win: The point is to break the stereotypes about atheists that make it impossible for us to win.
How is the stereotype that an atheist can't become the President going to be broken by an atheist trying to become the President, and then failing because he's an atheist?

How is the stereotype that an atheist can't become the President going to be broken by an atheist trying to become the President, and then failing because he's an atheist?

Not what I meant! What atheists need is a face for the public, and that face needs a grand entrance. The poll just sparked an idea for a way to get plenty of publicity.

you havent been paying attention then. an atheist "rachael ray" would have incredibly more notice than a failed presidential campaign run by an ahteist outsider without major party affiliation.

What, Phil Donahue, Lance Armstrong, and Ray Romano aren't good enough?


Fickle Fatalists

See, the problem, when the average middle class American thinks of "atheist", they think of that smug looking guy who insults every religion whenever he gets the chance, won't listen to any reasonable arguement, and is generally an all around asshole.
Now, I personally know that most atheists aren't like that, but, just like the loud-mouth christian fundamentalist bible thumpers, they are the most annoying, idiotic, and generally the ones to make their views public.
Atheism needs to work on it's image first, and kill the really annoying loud-mouthed ones, just like the christians needs to kill their bible-thumping fundies.

I have been thinking of making an atheist group against discrimination. If anyone would like to help yo could TG me or email me. :) :fluffle:

So the uber-fundies would rather see a gay guy in office than an atheist? Sad. Atheism isn't nihilism- just because we don't believe in some imaginary dictator in the clouds doesn't mean we'll run the USA to the ground.

What, Phil Donahue, Lance Armstrong, and Ray Romano aren't good enough?


Fickle Fatalists

you must be OLD, fickle. phil donahue has been off the air longer than most of our posters here have been alive.

i was unaware that lance armstrong and ray romano are atheists so i guess that the answer is "no, they arent enough".

we need more people to come out of the atheist closet and admit that they just dont believe.

Stop voting for someone because they are black or a female or hispanic or Republican/Democrat or a Jew/Catholic/'insert religion here' and start voting for them because they have American's and America's best interest at heart.

I agree, but why not even have the world's best interest at heart?

Globalisation is well on its way, and I think it's time for us to start electing policiticans whose policies will serve a broader, less selfish kind of aim.

I agree, but why not even have the world's best interest at heart?

Globalisation is well on its way, and I think it's time for us to start electing policiticans whose policies will serve a broader, less selfish kind of aim. Is it not in the world's best interest for powerful first-world nations to stay that way?

Besides, the whole world-policeman thing is going to die in 2008.

Well one reason is the South (God Blessit). To win the presidency carrying the South his HUGE. No atheist will carry the bible belt areas of the South~

I agree, but why not even have the world's best interest at heart?

Globalisation is well on its way, and I think it's time for us to start electing policiticans whose policies will serve a broader, less selfish kind of aim.
Ummmm... What? Serving America/ to your fullest ability is [I]selfish?

Is it not in the world's best interest for powerful first-world nations to stay that way?

Of course, granted that they don't maintain that status at the (great) expense of others. Personally, I feel that so-called first-world nations should use their abilities for the furtherment of wordly progress rather than exploitation (if possible). With privilege comes responsibility, etc. But yes, stability is typically beneficial in the absence of unethical practices.

Besides, the whole world-policeman thing is going to die in 2008.

One can only hope... I currently have my fair share of doubts about the Democratic forerunners. I'd vote for Obama without hesitation, but frankly I don't see him or Hilary taking the general elections.

See, the problem, when the average middle class American thinks of "atheist", they think of that smug looking guy who insults every religion whenever he gets the chance, won't listen to any reasonable arguement, and is generally an all around asshole.

Umm yes thats how most outspoken Atheists are (at least that guy who challenged "Under God" in the national anthem.
Now, I personally know that most atheists aren't like that, but, just like the loud-mouth christian fundamentalist bible thumpers, they are the most annoying, idiotic, and generally the ones to make their views public.

Wow you need to get out more and stop living under that Christian bashing rock! Just like im getting out of my gay bashing one!

Ummmm... What? Serving America/ to your fullest ability is [I]selfish?

There is nothing wrong with serving your constituents well, but in an increasingly interdepedent world I think it is important to at least consider the effects of a given policy on externalities.

Umm yes thats how most outspoken Atheists are (at least that guy who challenged "Under God" in the national anthem.

I've noticed the same kind of thing; in America, I think it has alot to do with atheism being a kind of counterculture. Consequently, it appeals to intellectuals and iconoclasts alike- only the iconoclastic personalities tend to be the ignorant loudmouths that get all of the airtime. :(

...And don't call this a fault of American politics: This happens EVERYWHERE.

I don't live in EVERYWHERE; I live in America. I also never pegged this as a sole American problem but mearly said that this is a problem with American Politics. Here I'll even quote myself ...
And this is the problem with American politics.

I agree, but why not even have the world's best interest at heart?

Globalisation is well on its way, and I think it's time for us to start electing policiticans whose policies will serve a broader, less selfish kind of aim.

And I think the world can walk on it's own. America doesn't need to hold everyones hand anymore. I think it's time we stop placating to what the rest of the world seems to want from us. We should be working on making America a better country. Perhaps we start by demanding the government to stop handicaping our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling Socialist Nannystate laws.

Ah. I misread you: I apologize.

And I think the world can walk on it's own. America doesn't need to hold everyones hand anymore. I think it's time we stop placating to what the rest of the world seems to want from us. We should be working on making America a better country. Perhaps we start by demanding the government to stop handicaping our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling Socialist Nannystate laws.

I didn't mean that we (the USA) should go around wiping everyone's noses for them; I was just saying that we should avoid policies that drive third-worlders into greater depths of poverty/destabilize entire regions/incite cultural or religious division. Of course its not always possible to avoid these things, but it would be nice to see an administration that at least takes them into consideration.

I'm an advocate of small-as-practically-possible government, myself. Once again- I only meant avoiding bad policy, not initiating international welfare.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/usa_todaygallup_1.html

So, once again atheists are at the absolute bottom of the list, under even homosexuals. More than half of the people surveyed rejected a well-qualified candidate solely on that fact. Who's persecuting who, again?


Clearly, something has to be done. There's got to be an organization somewhere that can fund an atheist third-party candidate with enough vigor to appear nationally. Someone needs to get out there and fight, appear on the talk shows, debate the talking heads, laugh with Jon Stewart. Because the only counter to ignorance is knowledge. We need someone to represent us, and show we're NOT just puppy-killing bastards or the faceless evil next door, that we won't purge all the Christians or burn bibles, that we're just like anyone else, with hopes and dreams and love and mercy.

I wish I could volunteer, but I don't reach the age limit. But I'm reaching out. There's got to be an atheist organization large enough to fund this..

a specifically atheist candidate would be confrontational at this time and it would split the moderate vote and allow fanatical fundys to hold sway and further skew policy that reflects their ignorance...a organization dedicated to secular government should be the prime goal, support moderates who are devoted to a complete separation of church and state... people need to understand religious based governments are totalitarian, thought and morality police...in a country such as the USA where many people are paranoid about government interference in their private lives this should be an easy sell...

where I live in Canada no one questions a political candidates religious or sexuality, as long as it doesn't affect his/her performance ...the exception being the beliefs are so extreme that the public will not support them for the top job(a belief that the world was only 6,000yrs old eliminated one potential PM)

Problem is that American atheists (or, to be more accurate, non-church-goers) tend to veer much more to the liberal side. This does not go down well with middle America, which is important regardless of what you might think (http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/143-4328_IMG.JPG).

I know I am generalising, but it does narrow the list of atheist candidates and exacerbate Middle America's distrust. Also, people tend to feel that atheists don't believe in anything, which is probably why nationalists/communists can get away with it.

Well, I'm an atheist, I don't believe in anything, and I'm proud of it. :D

Well, here's one question :

Why does the USAmerican voting public even know what religious beliefs of the candidates hold?
Seriously, I am German, and I couldn't tell you the beliefs of our last 3 chancellors. Well, Kohl believed he was destined to make history, and I think Schroeder believed he could make money. But other than that, I've no clue what their religions are or were.
Do US candidates get asked what they believe in on a regular basis? Is that even legal to ask them? I assume it would be an illegal question in every job interview...

We (Germany) had this issue once too, remember when there was the question whether or not to take out the reference to god out of the 'European Constitution' and Schröder simply decided that the people who want it in there would care more than the people who want it taken out?

In my opinion, a nation really devoted to Democracy should do everything to seperate State and Church and religion in general. I mean, leaders can have their beliefs, but they should in no way influence what they are deciding.

The situation in the US is just sick.

Very true indeed...
Usian should vote for a different kinda person.
An alcoholic, an asshole, a hypocritical monkey?
Nay he can't replay the show a third time... Pity we had a good laugh with 40 000 dead in Irak, nearly more Saddam dared to killed.

The next one wants to be black (or nearly) or a female.
No free mason around? :fluffle:

we (u.s.) need something. the existing constitution was crated agnostic theists, NOT fanatical pseudo-christians, nor idilogicly fanatical corporate capitolists pretending to be fanaitcal pseudo-christians as the later criminal mentality tries to pretend.

buddhists, daoists, shintoists, keepers of indiginous traditions, ANYTHING but more damed chauvanistic monotheists!

and they damd sure shouldn't have to be 'white' or male either.

i think people really are tired enough and pissed off enough at the same old crap that they really would vote for something else if given half the chance and not being brainwashed out of it.

=^^=
.../\...

An in the UK the Queen is going to convert to Judaism coz she's fed up to be head of free masonery.

Well, here's one question :

Why does the USAmerican voting public even know what religious beliefs of the candidates hold?
Seriously, I am German, and I couldn't tell you the beliefs of our last 3 chancellors. Well, Kohl believed he was destined to make history, and I think Schroeder believed he could make money. But other than that, I've no clue what their religions are or were.
Do US candidates get asked what they believe in on a regular basis? Is that even legal to ask them? I assume it would be an illegal question in every job interview...

They're not asked, but if they're not regularly known to go to a church of some kind religious organizations get all up their cases, barking of immorality and persecution. That, and no major party would willingly nominate an atheist or non-Christian: It's essentially committing political suicide. The moment that fact becomes known (and believe me, with the mudslinging that goes it becomes known FAST) that candidate is dead in the water.

Have any of you been to the website that the article mentions: www.fixedearth.com. It really smacks of time cube.
Read all about the Copernican and Darwinian Myths
(emphasis added) Thats right, they deny that the Earth moves at all. And a state lawmaker referenced the site as credible.
It then goes on for a couple long rambling pages. I noticed this:
occult mathematics
At that point the website lost more credibility than it had (hows that for occult mathematics).
They claim to have evidence that the earth is not moving, but all they can come up with is the connection between evolution and communism and Darwin and Marx. Basically their argument is this:

"the fact that the earth moves has been put beyond any doubt in science therefore it must be false."
"But that doesn't make any sense..."
"LOOK COMMUNISTS! RUN!"

I'm going to ingnore the arguments about evolution and copernicanism, and focus on their attack on mathematics.
One could wonder of what sort was the "religion" that was mixed in with "mathematics" to achieve the theories of the above-named "geniuses". And, since pure mathematics knows nothing of subjectivity, much less of religion, isn’t it immediately clear that increasingly arcane mathematics has been nothing more than a specialized tool employed to create a rich variety of "scientific hypotheses"? And is it not equally clear that it is this mystic tool of arcane math which has established the idol of scientism in the all branches of "knowledge" while furthering the "religio/ philosophical" proclivities of the "geniuses" in the driver’s seat at the time?One could wonder of what sort was the "religion" that was mixed in with "mathematics" to achieve the theories of the above-named "geniuses". And, since pure mathematics knows nothing of subjectivity, much less of religion, isn’t it immediately clear that increasingly arcane mathematics has been nothing more than a specialized tool employed to create a rich variety of "scientific hypotheses"? And is it not equally clear that it is this mystic tool of arcane math which has established the idol of scientism in the all branches of "knowledge" while furthering the "religio/ philosophical" proclivities of the "geniuses" in the driver’s seat at the time?
So mathematics must be thrown out because early mathematicians had difficulty with mathematical rigor, right.
There is a lot of material on this site, a lot. There was this quote (with a response):
"This special mathematics _the tensor analysis, the matrix calculus, the theory of characteristic numbers has for the greater part been created by the physicists themselves, for ordinary mathematics is unable to satisfy the requirements of present day physics." 32 [Who says 2 + 2 can’t be 3 or 5?? Not "present day physicists"!]
I mention this because it is particularly appalling. Tensor mathematics doesnt meant that 2+2=5. Period. It is based on common algebraic truths.
He (or she?) goes on to claim that tensor mathematics only exists to justify an anti-bible stance.
He also claims that because kabbalists claim that superstring theory is religiously justified, or something, it must be evil, or something.
Anyways, this just goes on forever....
A Summary of the Overwhelming Mathematical Evidence of the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures
http://www.fixedearth.com/Panin.htm
Excuse me, but numerology is simply not mathematics.
Thank you.

Even in Ireland, no-one cares what your religion is - though perhaps that because's it's a bit predictable: odds are that you're a Catholic (which really means you're:
1. an atheist - you'll never find a more stauch atheist than an Irish Catholic
2. you're anti-abortion).

Though in europe, if the head of gov/state said "God bless [insert country here]", he/she'd be carted off to the lunitic asylum - and lots of states in europe have a state religion.

"God doesn't exist" isn't a policy.

And considering you get Christians that are both pro and against, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. what exactly would this politician, the one with the atheist agenda, do differently?

Or rather, what belief would they hold, that was relevant to running a country, would being an atheist give them? No prayer in schools? A load of Christians are against that. I don't see that someone's religion matters as much as people make out.

I would just like to mention that, while it is certainly a good idea to eliminate or at least lessen the stigma of atheism in American politics and American life in general by showing to America, in the form of a presidential candidate, a good person who is also an atheist, I have noticed that some of the posters here are fairly stereotypical atheists themselves, at least according to this definition:

See, the problem, when the average middle class American thinks of "atheist", they think of that smug looking guy who insults every religion whenever he gets the chance, won't listen to any reasonable arguement, and is generally an all around asshole.
Now, I personally know that most atheists aren't like that, but, just like the loud-mouth christian fundamentalist bible thumpers, they are the most annoying, idiotic, and generally the ones to make their views public.
Atheism needs to work on it's image first, and kill the really annoying loud-mouthed ones, just like the christians needs to kill their bible-thumping fundies.

For example:


as opposed to GWB?

all this religious bullshit... it's shameful people still need to believe in the big daddy figure in the sky nowadays, just because they are too fucking cowardly to take some personal responsibility for themselves

... or should be more relevant, should all voters have , you know, Brains, and care about real matters than about the big daddy in the sky

I have been thinking of making an atheist group against discrimination. If anyone would like to help yo could TG me or email me. :) :fluffle:

So the uber-fundies would rather see a gay guy in office than an atheist? Sad. Atheism isn't nihilism- just because we don't believe in some imaginary dictator in the clouds doesn't mean we'll run the USA to the ground.

and

Athiesta's location: Yeehaw, America


I'm not trying to insult you; I think breaking stereotypes is a great idea, and I do in fact agree that the public is by and large a bit stupid. However, I am simply pointing out some hypocracy on your parts. Insulting religion and America in general seem poor ways of demonstrating that most atheists are just ordinary people who have values, hopes, goals, and empathy just like those people of faith.

Even in Ireland, no-one cares what your religion is - though perhaps that because's it's a bit predictable: odds are that you're a Catholic (which really means you're:
1. an atheist - you'll never find a more stauch atheist than an Irish Catholic
2. you're anti-abortion). Never a truer word!

You forgot that there are no Protestants in Ireland, just Proddies. ;)


As with the whole "mistrust of atheists" thing in the US, has anyone considered that it's the same when atheists are a majority? Sad but true, it does not just apply to those evil Chrischuns.

I'm bisexual, an atheist, and a communist. And I'm rather willing. One problem though: I'm 15.

I'm bisexual, an atheist, and a communist. And I'm rather willing. I think I've identified you as Robert Mugabe now.

Even in Ireland, no-one cares what your religion is - though perhaps that because's it's a bit predictable: odds are that you're a Catholic (which really means you're:
1. an atheist - you'll never find a more stauch atheist than an Irish Catholic
2. you're anti-abortion).


Wow, I thought I was the only Irish, atheist, catholic, anti abortionist...

Didn't know I filled a steryotype...

For many leaders, their religion it one of the things that definces their policies. For examle, GWB used his presidential veto to block funding for stem cell research.
Nonetheless, a vote should be based on those policies, rather than a religion straight.

And I think the world can walk on it's own. America doesn't need to hold everyones hand anymore. I think it's time we stop placating to what the rest of the world seems to want from us. We should be working on making America a better country. Perhaps we start by demanding the government to stop handicaping our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling Socialist Nannystate laws.

Um... not meaning to be offensive, but when did America every hold anyones hand or even attempt to placate to what the rest of the world wants?

Seems to me America is a bit Splendidly Isolated currently. Sure America had Tony Blair as it's lapdog, but on the whole countries don't agree with America, and America doesn't care.

As for making America a better country, prehaps it could listen to some advice for once instead of blundering in like it always does. I mean look at America's forgein policy and George Bush's Holy wars in the Middle East. How does having the entire Arab world hating America make it a better place?

Don't get me wrong, I think America is a great place and I have lived there, but there is a kinda ingrained pigheadedness in the culture that the world could do without.

As with the whole "mistrust of atheists" thing in the US, has anyone considered that it's the same when atheists are a majority? Sad but true, it does not just apply to those evil Chrischuns.

When have Atheists ever been a majority?

When have Atheists ever been a majority? Not atheist majority perhaps, but certainly atheists and sceptics exert a lot of influence in the UK now. See the recent furor over proposed church exemptions from being forced to do gay adoptions and the anti-Catholic remarks by government ministers - or the hostile anti-Christianity and sucking up to Islam (this is changing) that pervades much of the great and the good in Europe.

When have Atheists ever been a majority?They don't need to be. Then again, only fanatics are discriminated against in societies where overt religious crap isn't the norm. And I can think of a fair few reasons for discriminating against fanatics.

They don't need to be. Then again, only fanatics are discriminated against in societies where overt religious crap isn't the norm. And I can think of a fair few reasons for discriminating against fanatics.

I have no idea what this post is trying to tell me.

And I think the world can walk on it's own. America doesn't need to hold everyones hand anymore. I think it's time we stop placating to what the rest of the world seems to want from us. We should be working on making America a better country. Perhaps we start by demanding the government to stop handicaping our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling Socialist Nannystate laws.

Um... no offense intended, but since when did America ever hold anyones hand or do anything to placate anybody?

Seems to me that America is pretty much in Splendid Isolation. Sure America may have had Tony Blair as its lapdog but in general, they don't listen to anyone and don't seem to care what anyone thinks. They make up their own mind and blunder in like always seemingly with no thought for the consequences.

Did George Bush listen before embarking on his Holy Wars? Will America become a better country if it is hated througout the Middle East?

Don't get me wrong, I like Americans and America in general and I have lived there. But there is an ingrained pigheadedness in the culture that is doing it no favours. Prehaps the best corse of action would be to listen to the advice of other countries, not to hold their hands, America is more like the child whos found his fathers gun in all of this. Maybe you need to learn that you really can't be alone in this world.

They don't need to be. Then again, only fanatics are discriminated against in societies where overt religious crap isn't the norm. And I can think of a fair few reasons for discriminating against fanatics. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a fanatic? News to me.:D

(Sorry should be in responde to this quote:
And I think the world can walk on it's own. America doesn't need to hold everyones hand anymore. I think it's time we stop placating to what the rest of the world seems to want from us. We should be working on making America a better country. Perhaps we start by demanding the government to stop handicaping our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling Socialist Nannystate laws.)

Um... no offense intended, but since when did America ever hold anyones hand or do anything to placate anybody?

Seems to me that America is pretty much in Splendid Isolation. Sure America may have had Tony Blair as its lapdog but in general, they don't listen to anyone and don't seem to care what anyone thinks. They make up their own mind and blunder in like always seemingly with no thought for the consequencies.

Did George Bush listen before embarking on his Holy Wars? Will America become a better country if it is hated througout the Middle East?

Don't get me wrong, I like Americans and America in general and I have lived there. But there is an ingrained pigheadedness in the culture that is doing it no favours. Prehaps the best corse of action would be to listen to the advice of other countries, not to hold their hands, America is more like the child whos found his fathers gun in all of this. Maybe you need to learn that you really can't be alone in this world, and also to grow up a bit.

I'm not trying to insult you; I think breaking stereotypes is a great idea, and I do in fact agree that the public is by and large a bit stupid. However, I am simply pointing out some hypocracy on your parts. Insulting religion and America in general seem poor ways of demonstrating that most atheists are just ordinary people who have values, hopes, goals, and empathy just like those people of faith.

You try reading the Bible (carefully!) and not insulting God.
He does something barbaric every few pages.
Like commanding some guy (who he knows will obey him) to kill his own son.
Or decimating Egypt.
Or massacring all the Midianites excluding the virgin women.
Or killing his own chosen people for huge amounts of stupid reasons, including killing over 14,000 people for complaining that he killed some people.

I think I've identified you as Robert Mugabe now.

Who?

Who?

Yeah, that would be you...

Why does the USAmerican voting public even know what religious beliefs of the candidates hold?
The political spies on both sides - they'll have some in every church, pub, wherever, and if someone's not turning up to any services - they are an atheist. And hence A GODLESS COMMIE LIBERAL WHO ENCOURAGES FAGGOTRY IN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, WHO HE IS HIRING TO DO WHITE, CHRISTIAN WORK!

I'd assume.

http://godlessamericans.org/

It's not like nobody is trying to get our voices heard.

http://godlessamericans.org/

It's not like nobody is trying to get our voices heard.


I wish we had something like that in Australia. Especially in Queensland. I hate the current buggery of education by intelligent design lobbyists, the censorship that is occurring as a result of Christian lobbying (this includes banning Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings from school curricula), the censorship that is occurring in society generally, and the virulent opposition to the provision of basic human rights such as gay marriage. It's disgusting.

I wish we had something like that in Australia. Especially in Queensland. I hate the current buggery of education by intelligent design lobbyists, the censorship that is occurring as a result of Christian lobbying (this includes banning Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings from school curricula), the censorship that is occurring in society generally, and the virulent opposition to the provision of basic human rights such as gay marriage. It's disgusting.

Considering that all that sounds like America right now, you probably do have something like that in Australia.
And like America, nobody's ever heard of it.

Considering that all that sounds like America right now, you probably do have something like that in Australia.
And like America, nobody's ever heard of it.

I think I would be burned at the stake. Along with anyone who joined me.

I think I would be burned at the stake. Along with anyone who joined me.Honey, I live in OKLAHOMA! It's about the most backwards place that has the internet available. If they haven't burned me at the stake (yet) then you're probably safe.

Honey, I live in OKLAHOMA! It's about the most backwards place that has the internet available. If they haven't burned me at the stake (yet) then you're probably safe.

True, although I think we're following your state's fine example over here. :D

Why would I vote for someone because they are atheist? That would be pretty shallow.

MAybe later...I'm hoping to rule Russia though...

An atheist is just as bad as a super-Christian. We need an agnostic, someone who just doesn't deal with religion period...

An atheist is just as bad as a super-Christian. We need an agnostic, someone who just doesn't deal with religion period...

Well, as a convert to Atheism, it took me a while to sort out my beliefes, but now I think I've pretty much dealt with them. I'd imagine an agnostic would have a lot more trouble with religion, but definatly would have to try to deal with it. Surely someone whos made up their mind is better as a president then someone who can't? A lot of Atheists just don't believe, and don't care. I'd say they are more likely not to deal with religion period. Assuming that you are only basing your vote on someones religious believes which would be foolish.

An atheist is just as bad as a super-Christian. We need an agnostic, someone who just doesn't deal with religion period... You could have a Chavez. "I have converted to Christ's kingdom of solidarity and socialism!"

Funny how everyone assumes an atheist leader will lead them into the light of gay marriages, abortions on demand and isolationism. I mean, yeah, Stalin was really fond of all those three…

You could have a Chavez. "I have converted to Christ's kingdom of solidarity and socialism!"

So basically invent a religion based on political opinion?

Even in Ireland, no-one cares what your religion is - though perhaps that because's it's a bit predictable: odds are that you're a Catholic (which really means you're:
1. an atheist - you'll never find a more stauch atheist than an Irish Catholic
2. you're anti-abortion).
Quoted for great truth.

Though in europe, if the head of gov/state said "God bless [insert country here]", he/she'd be carted off to the lunitic asylum - and lots of states in europe have a state religion.
I think we refernce God in our constitution.
Wow, I thought I was the only Irish, atheist, catholic, anti abortionist...

Didn't know I filled a steryotype...
Everyone fills a stereotype. Always.

Also, it's Uisce.

And this is the problem with American politics. Here's a novel idea, how about representing the Amerincan people? Just a thought though! I don't wanna blow anyones mind completly outta their skulls with this Earth-shattering ideological philosophy here.

Instead of Republicans/Democrats voting on Republicans/Democrats because of their party, they should be voting for the person who obviously not only has the American people's best interest at heart, but America as well. Stop voting for someone because they are black or a female or hispanic or Republican/Democrat or a Jew/Catholic/'insert religion here' and start voting for them because they have American's and America's best interest at heart.

Hear Hear

An atheist is just as bad as a super-Christian. We need an agnostic, someone who just doesn't deal with religion period...

Someone has a narrow view of what is "atheist"

Sorry to burst your bubble but being atheist is not necessarily the extreme version of the non-theist category. you are thinking more along the lines of a vocal anti-theist

Also, it's Uisce. He wanted Uisce Beatha but that was taken.

What, by the way, does Ifreann mean? Or is it just a kind of Biggus Dickus/Incontinentia Buttock pseudo-Gailige? ;)

He doesn't have one. I've met Ralph, and his idea of a good time is sitting alone in a room reading Jaques Derrida. He doesn't even drink.

As I've said many a time: Ralph Nader is the only Vulcan in politics. :)

He wanted Uisce Beatha but that was taken.

What, by the way, does Ifreann mean? Or is it just a kind of Biggus Dickus/Incontinentia Buttock pseudo-Gailige? ;)

Ifreann means hell. I wanted Neamh(heaven), but it was taken.

Wait… does that mean girls called Niamh are actually called "Heaven"? That's so… naff.

Wait… does that mean girls called Niamh are actually called "Heaven"? That's so… naff.

Correct.

there are great number of reasons why their wont be an atheist in office but the biggest one is that muslims will only vote for men of the book and christians like to keep christian ideals alive. this country was founded in the name of god and we would like to keep it that way.

there are great number of reasons why their wont be an atheist in office but the biggest one is that muslims will only vote for men of the book and christians like to keep christian ideals alive. this country was founded in the name of god and we would like to keep it that way.

Why do I find that people that claim we were "founded in the name of god" fail at history

Why do I find that people that claim we were "founded in the name of god" fail at history

Because you have a working brain and a rudimentary (at least) knowledge of history?

Because you have a working brain and a rudimentary (at least) knowledge of history?

:) ahhh so thats it lol

Wait… does that mean girls called Niamh are actually called "Heaven"? That's so… naff.

Naff? Is this a euphemism for sex?

An atheist is just as bad as a super-Christian. We need an agnostic, someone who just doesn't deal with religion period...


Methinks someone needs to look up the definition of the term agnostic....

Why do I find that people that claim we were "founded in the name of god" fail at history

Because this discussion has been done to death inconclusively 3 times in the past month.

Also: atheist does not, by definition, mean one who is strongly opposed to theistic beliefs. Atheism is, and it ONLY is, a lack of belief, or total disbelief, in god(s). In fact, one can be spiritual and still be an atheist, as shown by Buddhists, Daoists, Confucianists, etc.

What you think of when you say "atheist" and compare it to "super-Christian" you refer to the brand of atheism endorsed by Richard Dawkins and his colleagues, not to all atheists in general. Please dissuade yourself from that notion.

Edit: And agnostic doesn't specifically mean "someone who doesn't deal with religion, period." it just means that a person doesn't care whether there are gods or not. They can still deal with religions, like Buddhism, without believing or caring about the existence of deities.

Naff? Is this a euphemism for sex? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naff

The first definition. Although I suppose most girls called Niamh are indeed heterosexual.

Now why did you assume it meant sex?

You try reading the Bible (carefully!) and not insulting God.
He does something barbaric every few pages.
Like commanding some guy (who he knows will obey him) to kill his own son.
Or decimating Egypt.
Or massacring all the Midianites excluding the virgin women.
Or killing his own chosen people for huge amounts of stupid reasons, including killing over 14,000 people for complaining that he killed some people.

Try looking in the New Testament.

Once Jesus died, everything changed. It was no longer crucial that the Jews survived, and individuals no longer have to take the blame for their sins.

Try looking in the New Testament.

Once Jesus died, everything changed. It was no longer crucial that the Jews survived, and individuals no longer have to take the blame for their sins.

Which begs the question on why the hell he did not do that in the first place ...

For some reason god had a major mood change between books

Which begs the question on why the hell he did not do that in the first place ...

For some reason god had a major mood change between books

Maybe She was having her period during the Old Testament? It's a lot bloodier, after all. :D

Someone's gonna shoot me for that one

snip
Someone's gonna shoot me for that one

Lol and rightfully so :)

Maybe She was having her period during the Old Testament? It's a lot bloodier, after all. :D

Someone's gonna shoot me for that one


If God is a woman then what a crazy bulldyke she is. Growing a massive beard and getting her kids to call her dad. And a budgie's tounge like a toddlers thumb probably.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/usa_todaygallup_1.html

So, once again atheists are at the absolute bottom of the list, under even homosexuals. More than half of the people surveyed rejected a well-qualified candidate solely on that fact. Who's persecuting who, again?

I find it fascinating that, despite years of calculated fear-mongering by Bush Co about the Islamofascists, Americans are still more prepared to vote for a Muslim president than an atheist.

there are great number of reasons why their wont be an atheist in office but the biggest one is that muslims will only vote for men of the book and christians like to keep christian ideals alive. this country was founded in the name of god and we would like to keep it that way.
Who's we, have a mouse in your pocket?
I find it fascinating that, despite years of calculated fear-mongering by Bush Co about the Islamofascists, Americans are still more prepared to vote for a Muslim president than an atheist.

I guess Allah is better than nothing.

I find it fascinating that, despite years of calculated fear-mongering by Bush Co about the Islamofascists, Americans are still more prepared to vote for a Muslim president than an atheist.

Am I missing something? The poll there does not include Muslims...

As soon as you put an Atheist into office, all respect for religion is out the door and liberals have a field day on anything that remotely looks like a religious symbol at anywhere remotely public. They'll be burning churches, soon.

Liberals. Ugh.

The whole problem here is you want to be in the lime light. Who the fuck cares if you have a religion or not? AS long as you want them to aknowledge the fact your atheists they are going to hate you more. If people quit demanding their Religion/lack of religion, color, creed, etc be aknowledged then maybe people will begin to stop thinking about it and things will become more easy going, but the more you demand attention the more people are going to fight against it no matter what "IT" is.

All the demands for equality do is cause more inequality which then makes another group feel like they are being oppressed.


If the Aethiests should have a canidate why not the Wiccans, the Taoists, The Buddists, and everyone else we can have 3000 canidates on the ballot and no majority and just revel in chaos. Give up the "we demand equal" treatment BS and you might be suprised.

The whole problem here is you want to be in the lime light. Who the fuck cares if you have a religion or not? AS long as you want them to aknowledge the fact your atheists they are going to hate you more. If people quit demanding their Religion/lack of religion, color, creed, etc be aknowledged then maybe people will begin to stop thinking about it and things will become more easy going, but the more you demand attention the more people are going to fight against it no matter what "IT" is.

All the demands for equality do is cause more inequality which then makes another group feel like they are being oppressed.


If the Aethiests should have a canidate why not the Wiccans, the Taoists, The Buddists, and everyone else we can have 3000 canidates on the ballot and no majority and just revel in chaos. Give up the "we demand equal" treatment BS and you might be suprised.
Yes, because demanding equality never worked for anyone in the past.
*is whispered to by advisor*
What? Women? Really?
*further whispering*
Black people too? Damn it, why didn't you tell me!

Yes, because demanding equality never worked for anyone in the past.
*is whispered to by advisor*
What? Women? Really?
*further whispering*
Black people too? Damn it, why didn't you tell me!

Exactly there are no problems and issues over what sex you are today or what color your skin is that was all cleared up long ago. My Bad.

Exactly there are no problems and issues over what sex you are today or what color your skin is that was all cleared up long ago. My Bad.
Of course, black people and women are treated exactly the same as they were fifty years ago.
*whispering*
They're not treated the same?
*whispering*
They're treated better? What's going on here?

[/thievery from Ifreann to illustrate a point]

Exactly there are no problems and issues over what sex you are today or what color your skin is that was all cleared up long ago. My Bad.

The problems did not vanish because Black people decided to politely ask not to be second rate citizens they did not just sit about getting kicked off busses or being told they could not vote and nicely trotting off home hoping that the government would just decide out of the blue to award them the rights they wanted. Women did not get the Vote through sitting at home with their fingers crossed.

Both those groups demanded their equality.