Growing Acceptance of Atheists in the US, Would you vote for an Atheist?

[bob winter]

I cannot believe this would drag on for 20 pages.

[Norman Bernstein]

I cannot believe this would drag on for 20 pages.

The line between 'faithful believer' and 'fanatic' is particularly fuzzy, at times.

[TomF]

Oh TomF?
A very short while ago you apologized.
Are you going to exhibit the change in behavior that would indicate the sincerity of that apology?
How about commenting on # 943 for an excellent example (or #942, or any of a hundred others...) ?
Do you approve?
Recall that silence signals assent.

I apologized for my disrespectful comments on this and other threads, and said that I'd try to stay personally respectful going forwards - whether or not I agreed with your content. So far so good, eh? Not blown a gasket yet, or used disparaging tone.

Yes, I offered to argue in favour of being respectful to you (again) if you wished - I think we all should periodically re-set to a default of respectful posting, regardless of how our relationship with a person's going. I agree that the posts you indicated weren't terribly respectful ... and are part of an ongoing dialogue which includes similarly disrespectful tone etc. in your postings. Karma at work.

I think this dynamic sucks, and it's part of why I apologized for my lapses ... and am trying to "be the change" I want to see. I don't "approve" of poking sticks at you, or of you poking sticks at others. But the best I can do is become aware of and try to restrict my own stick-poking ... and try not to get reactive.

Best,

t

[Sam F]

Creeping up on 1000 posts here, and I can finally come to a conclusion, based on the gospel of SamF:

1) Atheists are the Devils' spawn.

Nope. Of course you could cite where I actually said that...

2) Christianity... at least, of the Catholic variety.... is always good.

Nope again... citation?

Beyond that, ...

...it's plain as the light of day that you have no idea what you're wagging your chin about.

[Sam F]

I cannot believe this would drag on for 20 pages.

20 pages? WOW OH WOW!!!!!
But then when one stops to actually think about it... the Oz Politics threads is what... 936 pages?

[Keith Wilson]

Recall that silence signals assent.

Logical fallacy #47: Silence about others' posts does NOT signal agreement.

[Sam F]

I apologized for my disrespectful comments on this and other threads, and said that I'd try to stay personally respectful going forwards - whether or not I agreed with your content. So far so good, eh?

Could'a fooled me...

Yes, I offered to argue in favour of being respectful to you...

Then so argue.

I agree that the posts you indicated weren't terribly respectful ...

Then do something about it.

...and are part of an ongoing dialogue which includes similarly disrespectful tone etc. in your postings.

Pay attention to the context Tom. There is no "Karma at work", or if there were, it's quite in the other direction.
F'rinstance, in the attack thread, Keith took me to task for being a "jerk". He deliberately ignored the context. His criticism amounted to taking me to task for being insufficiently submissive in a thread devoted to personally attacking me. I must say that even for a "we-decide-what's-right" fellow, that was a new low.
Given your silence on the matter, one must assume that was just fine with you.

I think this dynamic sucks, and it's part of why I apologized for my lapses ... and am trying to "be the change" I want to see.

Great. Then be that change. So far, I've seen no change at all.

I don't "approve" of poking sticks at you, or of you poking sticks at others. But the best I can do is become aware of and try to restrict my own stick-poking ...

That's the best you can do? Then please don't bother.

[Sam F]

Logical fallacy #47: Silence about others' posts does NOT signal agreement.

You'll have to do much better than that Keith.
Try reasoning & evidence.

[Sam F]

Like this: Qui tacet consentiret - "Silence gives consent". It is quite true that silence means in and of itself silence.
However, in an argument (or even in a neighborhood dispute, say, over a front yard eyesore), silence whatever it may mean, is functionally the same as agreement.
The matter grows much worse when the individual is not silent but critical.
It's exactly the same if I objected to my neighbor's eyesore, but Tom criticized me for doing so and never the fellow (pefjr ) who put up the eyesore in the first place.
The conclusion of assent, despite protestations to the contrary, is quite inescapable.

[Tom Montgomery]

TomF: You casting pearls before swine.

[Tom Montgomery]

SammyF is not here to make friends.

[pefjr]

Like this: Qui tacet consentiret - "Silence gives consent". It is quite true that silence means in and of itself silence.
However, in an argument (or even in a neighborhood dispute, say, over a front yard eyesore), silence whatever it may mean, is functionally the same as agreement.
The matter grows much worse when the individual is not silent but critical.
It's exactly the same if I objected to my neighbor's eyesore, but Tom criticized me for doing so and never the fellow (pefjr ) who put up the eyesore in the first place.
The conclusion of assent, despite protestations to the contrary, is quite inescapable.

hmmm.... I have never had a neighbor complain about me to another neighbor about any eyesore I have put up. Also, I have ignored countless statements by you and it was not because I agreed with them. You have spun yourself into a dizzy state. 20 pages of spin. I think everyone has answered the thread question, the rest has been good neighbors trying to correct your stubbornness. You can quit posting anytime if you can not take being corrected.

[TomF]

Sam, I'm sorry that you've chosen to be so ill-tempered about this.

Tom, we're all swine some days. The advantage here is that at least now and then I get to handle a few pearls.

[Peerie Maa]

Like this: Qui tacet consentiret - "Silence gives consent". It is quite true that silence means in and of itself silence.
However, in an argument (or even in a neighborhood dispute, say, over a front yard eyesore), silence whatever it may mean, is functionally the same as agreement.
The matter grows much worse when the individual is not silent but critical.
It's exactly the same if I objected to my neighbor's eyesore, but Tom criticized me for doing so and never the fellow (pefjr ) who put up the eyesore in the first place.
The conclusion of assent, despite protestations to the contrary, is quite inescapable.

So, you are agreeing that my proposal that OCD = Religion is correct then?

[TomF]

...The conclusion of assent, despite protestations to the contrary, is quite inescapable.

On the contrary, in our little thread dust-up here, it is quite escapable. There's no reason at all to assume - or to be unable to "escape" - the notion that silence equals consent. Especially when actually, there's not been the "silence" you're describing. Re-read a bit and you'll see, for instance, that I have noted a general lack of respect, that I do deplore it, and that I have taken personal actions to affect it. This isn't "silence" ... it's just not the kind of action you'd prefer me to take.

Silence is frequently not consent. Each of us have been "silent" for various periods when we simply weren't anywhere near a computer - spending time doing other things which were more important. Sometimes (as Nick's example shows) silence seems to mean that somebody doesn't much consider a topic relevant to answer. I mean, does your silence to Nick's question really mean that you think OCD is a religion? Sometimes "silence" is a conscious decision to let someone's words just hang out there ... for them to reflect on, and perhaps to reconsider ... in which situations, silence is tacet disapproval, not tacet consent. Happened last week that way, in a meeting I attended with First Nations elders; there was no illusion of consent on some topics, though there was plenty of silence.

So you see, one can certainly "escape" a conclusion that silence equals consent. The ability ... or perhaps the inclination to escape it frequently depends on the attitude or orientation of the person who appears to be "caught." It's worth pondering why escape seems so impossible, and what solace one might appear to get by remaining caught.

[Tom Montgomery]

Logical fallacy #47: Silence about others' posts does NOT signal agreement.

Silence is frequently not consent.

Who is making the rules here? You two or SammyF?

[TomF]

Oops! My mistake!

[Sam F]

hmmm.... I have never had a neighbor complain about me to another neighbor about any eyesore I have put up. Also, I have ignored countless statements by you and it was not because I agreed with them.

Did you ever bother reading? I said..."It is quite true that silence means in and of itself silence. However, in an argument (or even in a neighborhood dispute, say, over a front yard eyesore), silence whatever it may mean, is functionally the same as agreement."

You have spun yourself into a dizzy state...

No spin pefjr - just read what I wrote. For a change.

[Sam F]

Sam, I'm sorry that you've chosen to be so ill-tempered about this.

I too am sorry... sorry that you have chosen to say that I have been "ill-tempered".
Why not try actually responding to what I said instead?

[Sam F]

On the contrary, in our little thread dust-up here, it is quite escapable.

Pay attention Tom. I said nothing about "our little dust up". I said that my conclusion was inescapable.
And so it is.

There's no reason at all to assume - or to be unable to "escape" - the notion that silence equals consent.

Read what I said Tom: ""It is quite true that silence means in and of itself silence. However, in an argument (or even in a neighborhood dispute, say, over a front yard eyesore), silence whatever it may mean, is functionally the same as agreement.
The matter grows much worse when the individual is not silent but critical."
What part of that is hard to understand?

Especially when actually, there's not been the "silence" you're describing.

Don't I know it! No one would say that you've been silent. Far from it! And one must draw conclusions from your posts which are silent on one thing and quite vocal on others.
Why don't you explain your behavior where you condemn me, but pass over worse from the Pack?
I'd really appreciate an explanation that proves my conclusion is wrong.

Re-read a bit and you'll see, for instance, that I have noted a general lack of respect, that I do deplore it, and that I have taken personal actions to affect it.

Coulda fooled me. Let's see an example.

[Tom Montgomery]

Boo hoo.

[Steve McMahon]

I'm glad this thread has finally turned into a humor thread. Although I have enjoyed following it, it was getting a bit too serious. You are a hoot Sam.

[TomF]

An example of me taking personal actions to not speak disrespectfully to you? Sure - how about this post; the one you're reading right now?

The language and tone you used to me in posts #957 or #970 would be enough, if established as a habitual pattern, for discipline for harassment in any of the workplaces I've been in over the past 20 years. Same with the 4 universities I'd studied in. It's not laced with F-bombs or demeaning names, but the climate developed through habitual use is enough.

I've contributed to a climate here through using that tone myself periodically, especially with you. I've recognized it, apologized to you for it, and haven't yet written another blistering reply to such things. So that's one positive step. It appears that others have been following along in our discussion, and may be prompted to think a bit about their posting too, reflecting on how you and I make out. That's another positive step.

But no, I've not mashed buttons on anyone - neither on the folks closer to my views, nor the ones further away. Nor have I sent PMs dancing across the internet scolding anyone, threatening to withold/reward this or that to compel their behaviour. I mean, what real purchase have either of us got, Sam? Witholding birthday greetings? A guy's eventually got to bow to common sense.

Neither of us has really any "actual" power to directly affect the tone anyone else takes, Sam. You and me, we aren't moderators, eh? The best we have is "moral suasion." Where any of us can get "purchase" here in internet-land is really only through the level of respect we use in our own words - while still speaking what we understand to be the truth.

Now if you don't mind, I'd rather not chat about this much more. It feels far too self-referential, and I'd rather just do stuff than spend time writing about all the "meta-doing" and the "why." I'm certainly no saint, and would rather try to improve my practice than my rationales.

[pefjr]

Now if you don't mind, I'd rather not chat about this much more. It feels far too self-referential, and I'd rather just do stuff than spend time writing about all the "meta-doing" and the "why." I'm certainly no saint, and would rather try to improve my practice than my rationales.

I don't blame you Tom, I have sat and watched, and stayed out of this effort of Sam's to throw a quilt trip on you. You bent over backwards to appease Sam, and he still does not acknowledge it. Maybe he does not know how? On a couple occasions I have defended Sam from the unwarranted gang attacks, and damn if he didn't turn on me like an attack dog. I don't think he wants any kindness, or respects any kindness shown to him.

[TDSoren]

I'm glad this thread has finally turned into a humor thread. Although I have enjoyed following it, it was getting a bit too serious. You are a hoot Sam.

My silence usually means I'm either too busy to get into the minutiae of a devolving digressing thread, or I've decided the discussion has become too similar to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY

Never does it mean I've capitulated or had my opinion swayed. If that's occurred, I'll say it outright.

That routine gives me an idea for a Pay website. There are probably as many trolls on the internet willing to pay to have their needs met as there are paying porn lovers!

Tom

[TomF]

My silence usually means I'm either too busy to get into the minutiae of a devolving digressing thread, or I've decided the discussion has become too similar to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY

No it hasn't!

[TDSoren]

No it hasn't!

Time for a new thread. "All time best Python routine".

[skuthorp]

"silence signals assent?"
Good grief, that's what I call clutching at straws.
Fun though and congrats to the thread starter, though we are a long way from the original question.

[AndyG]

Good grief, that's what I call clutching at straws.

Andy

[John Smith]

On the thread topic, I would love to have a president who is interested in doing the people's work, rather than God's.

[TDSoren]

On the thread topic, I would love to have a president who is interested in doing the people's work, rather than God's.

Amen.

[TomF]

They needn't be opposed. Even when the elected official is unaware of it.

[Sam F]

An example of me taking personal actions to not speak disrespectfully to you? Sure - how about this post; the one you're reading right now?

That's great Tom. Assuming I read your locution correctly, it means that you are not speaking disrespectfully to me now. Is that correct?
If so that can be easily tested.

The language and tone you used to me in posts #957 or #970 would be enough, if established as a habitual pattern, for discipline for harassment in any of the workplaces I've been in over the past 20 years...

That's respectful? Hardly. But that's OK. I'm used to the double standard. If you consider those posts harassment, you're using a standard that is extremely non-standard and ultimately as mysterious as "Buddhism is not a religion by my criterion, but Christianity is a religion by that very same criterion".
It makes no sense at all.
And in context, considering that I've been called some not very nice names in this thread, once again you put yourself in the position where hypocrisy is the only reasonable conclusion.

But no matter. I'm used top that too. In those "harassing" posts, I challenged you to return to the substance of the matter rather than "It's all about Sam's behavior that I don't like"
Apparently unnoticed, I once again agreed: "It is quite true that silence means in and of itself silence." What is that, if not agreement?
What, as far as I can see, you don't want to deal with is the justice aspect of the matter; that... "in an argument (or even in a neighborhood dispute, say, over a front yard eyesore), silence whatever it may mean, is functionally the same as agreement."

And...
The matter grows much worse when the individual is not silent but critical."

It would have been respectful if you'd addressed those points rather than once again trying to make this "all about Sam's behavior that I don't like".
Why not, for a change, address the point?

I've contributed to a climate here through using that tone myself periodically, especially with you.

Absolutely true.

I've recognized it, apologized to you for it,...

It has the tone of what Joni Mitchel called a "miraculous repentance". Let's see some concrete action instead.
Stop making this an... "It's all about Sam's behavior that I don't like".
Or if you object to my behavior, then object to anyone's bad behavior. Don't single me out and ignore worse from my opponents.
It is at best disingenuous to do otherwise.

and haven't yet written another blistering reply to such things. So that's one positive step.

Calling my attempt to bring things back to a non-personal level "harassment" is not an improvement. Let's work on that first, shall we?

[Sam F]

But no, I've not mashed buttons on anyone...

I have never "mashed any buttons". I never will - because I actually believe in free speech. That's quite unlike some "open minded" folk here who wish to silence any disagreement.

Nor have I sent PMs dancing across the internet scolding anyone, threatening to withold/reward this or that to compel their behaviour.

Nobody is suggesting any such thing. But a little meek and timid objection to some of the unreasonable hostility directed at me would be nice.

I mean, what real purchase have either of us got, Sam? Witholding birthday greetings? A guy's eventually got to bow to common sense.

...silence whatever it may mean, is functionally the same as agreement. The matter grows much worse when the individual is not silent but critical."
At the very least, if you can't bring yourself to complain of anyone else's bad behavior, except mine, then be truly silent. At least then your point is valid.

Neither of us has really any "actual" power to directly affect the tone anyone else takes, Sam.

Really? That's great. Then my replies to the nastiness personally directed at me, have no effect one way or the other and it makes no difference what I do.
So I can just keep on keeping on. But surely you didn't mean that.

Now if you don't mind, I'd rather not chat about this much more. It feels far too self-referential, and I'd rather just do stuff than spend time writing about all the "meta-doing" and the "why." I'm certainly no saint, and would rather try to improve my practice than my rationales.

Maybe. But I'd work on those rationales if I were you.

[Sam F]

By way of dilation... I have never "mashed any buttons". I never will - because I actually believe in free speech. That's quite unlike some "open minded" folk here who wish to silence any disagreement.
Heck, some here even disagree with agreement.
It is plain as the proverbial pikestaff that I attempted more than once to reach agreement in this thread.
I entirely conceded the point that Buddhism is not a religion - only asking that one be consistent about criteria.
That was roundly rejected.

The fact is that some of you are simply disagreeable.

Since my agreement was rejected for no rational reason - unless one considers personal attacks a "rational reason", one must conclude that
the operating principle behind that rejection is unreasonable.
That this behavior is favored by those who claim the mantle of reason is highly amusing.

[Tom Montgomery]

Ugly, ugly, ugly....

[Tom Montgomery]

...I actually believe in free speech. That's quite unlike some "open minded" folk here who wish to silence any disagreement.
Heck, some here even disagree with agreement.

It is plain as the proverbial pikestaff that I attempted more than once to reach agreement in this thread.

HAhahaHEEheeheeHAhahahaHEEheeheHahahahahahahaHeehe ehee....

STOP IT! YOU'RE KILLING ME!
z

[pefjr]

It is plain as the proverbial pikestaff that I attempted more than once to reach agreement in this thread.

Proverbial pikestaff my butt. You have behaved just the opposite from your choosing a definition for religion to this post. I doubt anyone else expects anything different from you, I don't, I have given up, but will be pleasantly surprised if it occurs.

[TomF]

Sam, I do not think that "It's all about Sam's behaviour that I don't like." If I thought so, I'd not have acknowledged my own contributions to the tone here, or agreed with you that some of the other postings here (e.g. the ones you'd highlighted in an earlier post) were also disrespectful.

In fact, I started this whole direction shift in the thread not intending to talk about your behaviour really at all; I acknowledged the truth of one of your posts which observed that I'd been out of line. I saw that you were right, apologized for my disrespect, the hurt I felt that it and similar posts elsewhere likely caused, and said I'd try to act differently going forwards. My only tip of the hat to your tone, back then, was to say that as I'm a flawed person ... that I'd find it easier to follow through to the degree that it was reciprocal. I'd have been happy to leave it there - and am happy to leave it there now.

In that post I didn't ask for or somehow require reciprocity ... nor do I now; that apology isn't "conditional." IMO it would be nice if others (including, but not exclusively you) also decided to try what I'm trying ... but I've no interest nor capacity to compel that. And am much more comfortable leaving the discussion about my own posting behaviour than about yours, or anyone elses.

Again, the reason I drew attention at all to the tone of posts #957 and #970 was simply to use my response to those posts (#973) as a tangible example of me attempting to take effective steps to address the tone here in the Bilge. You'd asked for such an example in #970 ... and yes, I think #973 is honest, but respectful. Respect doesn't mean not telling the truth. Probably the example you'd have preferred, though, would have been me calling out others on their posts...

Ciao.

[TomF]

Part of #985 feels, uhmm, revisionist to me, Sam. What seems plain to me is that you feel my claim about Buddhism is ridiculous, and you wanted to show just how ridiculous by insisting that we all apply the same logic to Christianity. IMO that isn't seeking agreement, that's a debating tactic.

What is still "plain as a pikestaff" to me is that agreement there is pretty unlikely. And will probably only result from (my) capitulation.

[fishrswim]

Guys-

Arguing with Sam is like mud wrestling with a pig. The pig enjoys it and you just get all muddy. And you'll never win, not because you're wrong, but because he attacks you personally if he thinks you are getting the best of the argument.

If we just leave him alone, maybe he'll go somewhere else. He's an ideologue who believes strongly in the Catholic church and it's dogmas which he can spout endlessly to support his arguments. So in the end, it's just circular reasoning, and if you get caught up in it you'll end up chasing your tail.

[Old Dryfoot]

From way back... post #395.

4. Conversation that is not conversation

The sociologist, Charles Derber, in his book The Pursuit of Attention: Power and Ego in Everyday Life (Oxford University Press, 2000), writes about the “conversational narcissist.” He is referring to the person who, in different ways, some more blatant than others, uses the context of a conversation to keep drawing attention to himself or herself.

Derber reminds us that there is nothing simple or straightforward about conversation. All types can – and generally do – turn up for a public conversation. There are some people who seem incapable of engaging in conversation as we have described it above. Whether it is because of ideological reasons or immaturity or a personality disorder, or some other cause, it must be acknowledged. Sometimes, therefore, an attempted conversation must be abandoned or not even attempted.

Apart from the “look at me” attitude, we might suggest some other obstacles to conversation as we are proposing it here.

• There are people for whom the underlying agenda may be summarized as “This is a necessary game” – their primary concern is to fulfil some social function or duty; these people go through the motions and may do it very well; closer reflection reveals that a social fiction is being played out and there is no real conversation taking place – that is, there is no substance in the words, they are withholding themselves; public figures may feel themselves forced into this process frequently; we might all find ourselves submitting to this sort of “conversation” (ie “small talk”) at the occasional party or social event; at its best this sort of “conversation” is a basic necessity to social interaction, at its worst it is a manifestation of what T S Eliot calls “the hollow men;” ²

• There are people for whom the underlying agenda may be summarized as “The answer is” – their primary concern is to make sure the content is right and true, and probably suggest – more or less implicitly or explicitly – that they actually know the truth or know where it can be found or, at the very least, know that you do not know the truth and they are keen for you to know that; for these people the ideas and principles and facts are the end, not the actual conversation; they tend to reduce the conversation to debate or argumentation; these people may be genuinely knowledgeable but are more or less dysfunctionally pedantic; they may also be just (anxious?) know-alls, more in need of the sense of control that comes from having “the answer” than the sense of life that comes from connecting with another human being in a process of engagement and honest joint search; these people tend to be detached from, even unaware of, the human dimension and they can kill a genuine conversation almost as effectively as the “Look at me” types;

• There are people for whom the underlying agenda may be summarized as “The solution is” – their primary concern is to reduce everything to a “problem” for which a solution can be found; they generally believe they have the solution or at least know how to reach the solution; these people may be very good at getting things done and solving actual problems – the “can do person” – but they are very obstructive when there is no problem as such, where the process of connecting and conjointly searching is the important thing; they are typically not good listeners, therefore unlikely to be able to wait upon the moment, letting things emerge; life in the end is not a problem, it has no solution, it is a mystery to be lived; conversation is not about problem solving so much as it is about growing into the mystery with others;

• There are people for whom the underlying agenda may be summarized as “This is an ideological struggle” – their primary concern is to win; they tend to reduce the conversation to a competition or fight of some kind, out of which will emerge a winner and a loser and they are determined not to be the loser; it is hard to know with these people whether the content (ie the ideology) or the process (ie the fight) is the important thing; they share much in common with “The answer is” people but are generally more aggressive and confrontational and often enough immovably stubborn, one might even say “pig-headed;”

• There are people for whom the underlying agenda may be summarized as “This is in-house maintenance talk” – their primary concern is to maintain an ideology or current way of thinking and doing things; the exchanges are meant to confirm the status quo; there is no serious attempt to submit to one of the primary purposes of words, and that is revelation – such submission would imply change and thus threaten the status quo; clichés and in-jokes are common to this kind of talk and clearly recognizable (and simplistic) definitions of “good” and “bad” are accepted; different and challenging points of view are seldom engaged honestly or seriously.

We could probably enumerate a number of other more or less typical scenarios for what passes for conversation on a daily basis. You may depend we would also find that there was one disabling factor which kept recurring: The unwillingness or inability of one or more of the participants to be self-transcending. In one form or other – self-absorption, self-centredness, egocentricity, arrogance, selfishness, narcissism etc (ie the very antithesis of self-transcendence) – would typically lie at the heart of most failures to engage in genuine conversation.

Significantly enough it is also clearly a major obstacle to the realization of our best possibilities as beings who are constituted by and through relationships.

The full text is here.

[skuthorp]

Bump.... hate to see the thread languish now.......

"There are people for whom the underlying agenda may be summarized as “This is a necessary game” – their primary concern is to fulfil some social function or duty; these people go through the motions and may do it very well; closer reflection reveals that a social fiction is being played out and there is no real conversation taking place – that is, there is no substance in the words........."

[G.Sherman]

21, 21, 21, yeah, 21.

[Sam F]

Sam, I do not think that "It's all about Sam's behaviour that I don't like." If I thought so, I'd not have acknowledged my own contributions to the tone here,

OK. It's my behavior that you don't like and you're behavior that you don't like. So that makes two that you object to.
Anybody else in this that you'd like to specifically comment on - or is it just you and me? I guess not.

...or agreed with you that some of the other postings here (e.g. the ones you'd highlighted in an earlier post) were also disrespectful.

Disrespectful? I don't understand your standard. I am always disrespected and you never object - so I fail to see how that's relevant.

Respect doesn't mean not telling the truth.

It is plain as a pikestaff that you believe that.
I don't - in the interest of justice. I hope you'll respect that.

Probably the example you'd have preferred, though, would have been me calling out others on their posts...

Not really. I'd prefer consistency. If others aren't worth "calling out", then don't call me out. If on the contrary you feel the need to object to my posts, then for both consistency, context and to eschew hypocrisy, you must not single me out for special treatment.

Consistency however is not one of your strengths.

[Sam F]

You'd think that in Atheist started thread, whose purpose was to ask the question "Would you vote for an Atheist?", that to demonstrate their worthiness Atheists would be on their best behavior.
You'd think that... but if you were naive enough to do so you'd be quite disappointed.
Instead we've seen on display ignorance, unreasonableness, a reliance on logical fallacy, and outright falsehood.
Maybe that is their best behavior.
The last item listed is particularly amusing in this context. When challenged to justify a statement that I had stated a falsehood the response was a lie so stupid that it doesn't even count as a lie.
So would I vote for an Atheist? Based on Atheist behavior in this thread and assuming that it is indicative of Atheists in general - and there is abundant evidence that this behavior is representative - the answer is not only "No" but "Hell NO".
They can't be trusted to run the local dog pound* let alone anything requiring serious responsibility.


*which after all only requires that they basically kill most of the animals.

[Sam F]

Adieu!

[G.Sherman]

An Atheist does not believe in a godhead manipulating human kind. That does not mean they are without morals or an understanding of right or wrong. I would have no reason to NOT vote for one based on their lack of religious conviction. I would vote for them on my experience with their views, previous legislation, educational background and general worldview. Too many American politicians smugly parade their "christian" values and the flag lapel pin. But frankly, behind the scenes are anything but christian or patriotic. The Congress would not be stalled in petty partisan bickering if REAL patriotism was at work. The rush to grab as much glory and cash for their individual states has made almost all of them perfect targets for lobbyists, corporations and wealthy wack-jobs like Grover Norquist.

[Tom Montgomery]

You'd think that in Atheist started thread, whose purpose was to ask the question "Would you vote for an Atheist?", that to demonstrate their worthiness Atheists would be on their best behavior.

You'd think that... but if you were naive enough to do so you'd be quite disappointed.

Instead we've seen on display ignorance, unreasonableness, a reliance on logical fallacy, and outright falsehood.

Based upon those criteria I would never vote for either you or Paul Ryan.

[TDSoren]

You'd think that in Atheist started thread, whose purpose was to ask the question "Would you vote for an Atheist?", that to demonstrate their worthiness Atheists would be on their best behavior.
You'd think that... but if you were naive enough to do so you'd be quite disappointed.
Instead we've seen on display ignorance, unreasonableness, a reliance on logical fallacy, and outright falsehood.
Maybe that is their best behavior.
The last item listed is particularly amusing in this context. When challenged to justify a statement that I had stated a falsehood the response was a lie so stupid that it doesn't even count as a lie.
So would I vote for an Atheist? Based on Atheist behavior in this thread and assuming that it is indicative of Atheists in general - and there is abundant evidence that this behavior is representative - the answer is not only "No" but "Hell NO".
They can't be trusted to run the local dog pound* let alone anything requiring serious responsibility.


*which after all only requires that they basically kill most of the animals.

Pot...meet Kettle.