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

[Sam F]

Straight out of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Do you have any other reference?

Find it in that encyclopedia please. I don't recall quoting from it.

And of course you have not addressed the truth that...

"There is nothing more comforting than to believe in oneself and that one may do as one will and escape any consequences. "

I draw your attention once again to my signature line - I don't suppose, I don't believe, I know what I have said is true.

[wardd]

my problem with people of faith is their propensity to try to make others conform to their beliefs

[pefjr]

[QUOTE=Sam F;3453527]

Find it in that encyclopedia please. I don't recall quoting from it.

And of course you have not addressed the truth that...

"There is nothing more comforting than to believe in oneself and that one may do as one will and escape any consequences. "

I draw your attention once again to my signature line - I don't suppose, I don't believe, I know what I have said is true.

Google directs your inquiry to the CE, and I have addressed the truth, and the truth shall set you free! That is, if you could recognize truth.

[Osborne Russell]

Religion is a disease of the human spirit, an admission of failure to believe in oneself, and a willingness to cling to myths as infantile as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

I would vastly prefer to have an adult to vote for, than someone still clinging to childish fantasies like those.

I'd settle for a culture in which it rarely came up in politics. The US Constitution makes such a culture possible but the MEM'ers don't want it. They made it an issue, and now they whine about it being an issue.

Now, as I before hinted, I have no objection to any person’s religion, be it what it may, so long as that person does not kill or inslult any other person, because that other person don’t believe it also. But when a man’s religion becomes really frantic; when it is a positive torment to him; and, in fine, makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable inn to lodge in; then I think it high time to take that individual aside and argue the point with him.

Herman Melville, Moby-Dick, Chapter 17

[Osborne Russell]

Most every religious person is an Atheist when asked about any god not of their own creation. Interesting how their reason comes into play when considering the other gods. Ask them about the gods of the Aztecs, Incas. Ask them about the sacrificial demands of those gods. Ask them about the Greek gods, Roman gods. Ask them about any other of the billions of gods that have lived and died over the time of gods and they will deny they existed, or they may say they only worship their god. The difference between us is only one god. And why is this particular god their chosen one? Tradition. Their personal tradition, their ancestors, indoctrination. So they did not choose their god, it was chosen for them, then they personalized the god, made the god their own to depend on, and deny all others.

An excellent point. It accounts for why they can't respond to criticism -- they haven't ever adopted a critical posture. They believe uncritically, you might say. That's one thing, but here's two more: they demand that you also be uncritical of their religion, and mercilessly critical of everything else in the universe, just not this one thing. King's X, as we used to say.

[WX]

Our Prime Minister is an atheist and there is no discernible difference between her abilities and a christians...equally hopeless.

[Paul Pless]

equally hopeless.

...

[Tom Montgomery]

I'd settle for a culture in which it [religion] rarely came up in politics. The US Constitution makes such a culture possible but the MEM'ers don't want it. They made it an issue, and now they whine about it being an issue.

The U.S. government was devised by a group of Enlightenment thinkers. Yes... the very same Enlightenment that SammyF despises.

Some moderns simply despise living in a pluralistic society.

[PeterSibley]

Most every religious person is an Atheist when asked about any god not of their own creation. Interesting how their reason comes into play when considering the other gods. Ask them about the gods of the Aztecs, Incas. Ask them about the sacrificial demands of those gods. Ask them about the Greek gods, Roman gods. Ask them about any other of the billions of gods that have lived and died over the time of gods and they will deny they existed, or they may say they only worship their god. The difference between us is only one god. And why is this particular god their chosen one? Tradition. Their personal tradition, their ancestors, indoctrination. So they did not choose their god, it was chosen for them, then they personalized the god, made the god their own to depend on, and deny all others.

Perhaps a problem with spiritual taxonomy ? I recently had the charming experience of suggesting to my rather fundamentalist Christian neighbour that Allah and Jehovah were probably one and the same ( if either exists ). It wasn't meet well .Jehovah was an absolute reality apparently while Allah either an illusion or the Devil .There was some confusion there.

I must say that my neighbour is also a remarkably good and pleasant person.

[elf]

Some moderns simply despise living in a pluralistic society.

Fearful people do stupid things.

[Old Dryfoot]

I've always thought that the only real problems with religion were due to its subversion by those seeking power and or social control. It just seems to me that when this happens, that's when the real problems start.

[Sam F]

Google directs your inquiry to the CE,

Missed it by this much!
You only said "Go to the encyclopedia", which is not even close to an answer.

and I have addressed the truth, and the truth shall set you free! That is, if you could recognize truth.

Given your non-answer, whatever you have addressed, it is certainly not the truth.

[Sam F]

I've always thought that the only real problems with religion were due to its subversion by those seeking power and or social control. It just seems to me that when this happens, that's when the real problems start.

Social control is what government does.

If you're an anarchist I guess that makes sense (to the extent that a crazy notion like anarchism could make sense).
Otherwise, you've only objected to reality.

[Meli]

Our PM is an atheist and our finance minister is a malay chinese lesbian christian. Who cares ?

[Old Dryfoot]

Social control is what government does.

Now, in these modern times, and in the developed nations of the world, yes... to an extent. Religious influence in society in a effort to guide (control) the actions of a populace is everywhere. After all, is this thread not about the existence of religion in politics?

If you're an anarchist I guess that makes sense (to the extent that a crazy notion like anarchism could make sense).
Otherwise, you've only objected to reality.

Not even close to an anarchist, I do have a somewhat disaffected feeling from time to time though. For the record, I do not consider myself to be a religious person, though I do have a somewhat Buddhist approach to life. As far as objecting to reality, the only thing I object to that is relevant to this thread is intolerance.

[Osborne Russell]

I've always thought that the only real problems with religion were due to its subversion by those seeking power and or social control. It just seems to me that when this happens, that's when the real problems start.

When did it ever fail to happen?

[Old Dryfoot]

When did it ever fail to happen?

To a greater or lesser degree, I don't know that it has ever failed to happen. It might be a matter of the effects being of a more benign nature.

[Sam F]

Social control is what government does.

Now, in these modern times, and in the developed nations of the world, yes... to an extent.

And non-modern governments didn't? Of course they did.
Social control is what government does - otherwise there's no point in it.

Not even close to an anarchist,...

Then the only thing you have to take for your disaffection is to consider the best government - not one that does not exercise social control.

For the record, I do not consider myself to be a religious person, though I do have a somewhat Buddhist approach to life.

OK - sort of vague but if that's what you've got that's what you've got.

As far as objecting to reality, the only thing I object to that is relevant to this thread is intolerance.

Then by all means don't be intolerant.

[wardd]

and the rcc isn't all about social control?

not only does it want to tell me how to act it wants to tell me what to believe

[Old Dryfoot]

Now, in these modern times, and in the developed nations of the world, yes... to an extent. Religious influence in society in a effort to guide (control) the actions of a populace is everywhere. After all, is this thread not about the existence of religion in politics?

Social control is what government does.

And non-modern governments didn't? Of course they did.
Social control is what government does - otherwise there's no point in it.

You neglected to address the second portion of my statement, do you disagree with this assessment?

[pefjr]

and the rcc isn't all about social control?

not only does it want to tell me how to act it wants to tell me what to believe

The RCC is about tradition and money, it's a business for saving souls, and there is plenty of business. The model is copied successfully by many other religions and Gov'ts. They trip over the traditions a lot and tangle themselves up in the can of worms but still turning a profit. Jesus Saves.

[John Smith]

The RCC is about tradition and money, it's a business for saving souls, and there is plenty of business. The model is copied successfully by many other religions and Gov'ts. They trip over the traditions a lot and tangle themselves up in the can of worms but still turning a profit. Jesus Saves.

Only the religiously inclined would concern themselves with who someone else marries or what medicines or procedures someone else takes or undergoes. They set out to do exactly what our government is supposed to protect us from. When they succeed in taking over the government, who protects us?

[JimD]

Like the old saying goes, I don't care what anyone says they believe. I only care about how they behave.

[fishrswim]

I believe in the Constitution. Not god.

Article V Para 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[pefjr]

I believe in the Constitution. Not god.

Article V Para 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Interesting figures up in #1, shows 90% Repubs would vote for a mormon but only 72% of 'progressives', hmmmm...... I wonder.... religion ......or Political?

[TomF]

I believe in the Constitution. Not god.
...

I can respect this ... but how are you differentiating the two? Scalia and the "originalists," for example, appear to treat the Constitution as a form of scripture ... and the founders as analogues to God or the Prophets.

[Sam F]

You neglected to address the second portion of my statement, do you disagree with this assessment?

The only thing I didn't address was this:
"For the record, I do not consider myself to be a religious person, though I do have a somewhat Buddhist [that's a religion you know] approach to life."


You are welcome to believe in Buddhism or anything else you wish.
I don't understand however, how one can be not a religious person but still take somewhat religious approach to life.

[Sam F]

I can respect this ... but how are you differentiating the two? Scalia and the "originalists," for example, appear to treat the Constitution as a form of scripture ... and the founders as analogues to God or the Prophets.

There's not really so big a distinction between the originalists and the liberals vis-a-vis the notion of Constitution-as-Scripture.
Liberals also treat the Constitution as Scripture. If that isn't immediately understandable, recall how you treat Scripture.

[Arizona Bay]

The only thing I didn't address was this:
"For the record, I do not consider myself to be a religious person, though I do have a somewhat Buddhist [that's a religion you know] approach to life."


You are welcome to believe in Buddhism or anything else you wish.
I don't understand however, how one can be not a religious person but still take somewhat religious approach to life.

Buddhism is not a religion, belief is not required.

[JimD]

Buddhism is not a religion...

I think that's a tricky point. It sort of is and it sort of isn't.

[Durnik]

Originally Posted by Arizona Bay
Buddhism is not a religion...

I think that's a tricky point. It sort of is and it sort of isn't.

Well, all the religions say "_This_ is the _only_ way to live", IE, they are exclusive, as in "You can't/mustn't do/think that"..

while Buddhism is inclusive.. "Every path up the mountain is a valid path" - your's.. mine & (shudder.. ;-)), SamF's.. - included.


The problems with religions are many, but the basic problems seem to be
A) By definition, they disagree with each other
B) They each consider themselves to be _the_ law (as in punishment for perceived infractions) provider for all humans.
C) They tend to kill (torture/punish) people who disagree - see B, above.


So, Big Problem? Now, if religion were simply about a persons understandings within themselves, all would be fine.. But then, all would be Buddhist.. ;-)


YMMV, IMHO, YADDA, YADDA..

enjoy
bobby

[Arizona Bay]

I think that's a tricky point. It sort of is and it sort of isn't.

Much of that has to do with the ego/mind, and the idea (pattern) of something or someone being greater or lesser than something else. It effects students and teachers as well, sort of mutual ego stroking.

HHDL gets irritated at the monks who approach him on their knees and defer to his every word, but they do it anyway

[Arizona Bay]

Well, all the religions say "_This_ is the _only_ way to live", IE, they are exclusive, as in "You can't/mustn't do/think that"..

while Buddhism is inclusive.. "Every path up the mountain is a valid path" - your's.. mine & (shudder.. ;-)), SamF's.. - included.

Indeed! Though not every path leads up the mountain, some just run in circles, but that's ok too

So, Big Problem? Now, if religion were simply about a persons understandings within themselves, all would be fine.. But then, all would be Buddhist.. ;-)

or Buddha (and they are)

[Durnik]

>some just run in circles, but that's ok too

just the long way 'round.. ;-)


>or Buddha (and they are)

Ahh, but the awareness.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Sam F]

Buddhism is not a religion, belief is not required.

Belief not required? My goodness belief is required for practically everything.

But no matter, Websters says you're wrong:

Buddhism: a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teachings of Gautama Buddha...

Oh well!

[pefjr]

Belief not required? My goodness belief is required for practically everything.

But no matter, Websters says you're wrong:


Oh well!

Websters also says College Football is a religion. They also list know-nothingism as a near antonym for religion, which tells me something about Websters. Most Buddhists deny the existence of silly gods which makes them Atheists, but according to Websters they are just being religious about Atheism, which suits the religious , right Sam? Websters would says Phillip is religious.... about his guns, Norm religious about his slanted politics, and Sam F religious about his Catholic Encyclopedia.

[Arizona Bay]

Belief not required? My goodness belief is required for practically everything.

In a larger sense, I'll agree with you. What you believe, is what you will experience. We are the creator, the world is the mirror (as if it were something separate).

But no matter, Websters says you're wrong:


Oh well!

If that is what you believe, then that's how it is... for you
Have fun with it.

From a bumper sticker:
Don't believe everything you believe.

[pefjr]

Not only do the religious need their friend, they want the company of Atheists too.

[Old Dryfoot]

Belief not required? My goodness belief is required for practically everything.

The Buddhist belief.

We don't believe in a god because we believe in humanity. We believe that each human being is precious and important, that all have the potential to develop into a Buddha - a perfected human being. We believe that humans can outgrow ignorance and irrationality and see things as they really are. We believe that hatred, anger, spite and jealousy can be replaced by love, patience, generosity and kindness. We believe that all this is within the grasp of each person if they make the effort, guided and supported by fellow Buddhists and inspired by the example of the Buddha. As the Buddha says: No one saves us but ourselves, No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path, but Buddhas clearly show the way.
Dp. 165

What we do not believe.

The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.

[Peerie Maa]

I don't understand however, how one can be not a religious person but still take somewhat religious approach to life.

That is easy. You can "love thy neighbor as if thy self" without believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of the Spirit in the Sky.

[Old Dryfoot]

That is easy. You can "love thy neighbor as if thy self" without believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of the Spirit in the Sky.

Bingo.

[brad9798]

To answer the original question posted: NO!

[Glen Longino]

Bingo.

Bingo +1!
Humans were loving their neighbors as they loved themselves tens of thousands of years before there was a Jesus.
Sam only recognizes Jesus Incorporated as the sole owner and patent holder of Love.

[Peerie Maa]

To answer the original question posted: NO!

This would puzzle most Brits. We don't make a public show of our religion, and are more interested in the competence of our representatives after their politics. Their religion or lack is of little interest.

[Old Dryfoot]

To answer the original question posted: NO!

Lets play a little hypothetical.

Say you had a choice between two candidates. The first had a guaranteed way to solve all of the economic problems, unemployment would drop to record lows, wall street would do better than ever, and they could bring peace in the middle east. The second had none of these qualities but they were a devout Christian, and that was all they brought to the table. Would you still vote this way? Assuming party affiliation was a non issue.

[Glen Longino]

"The second had none of these qualities but they were a devout Christian..."...

You mean like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry?

[elf]

Here's an interesting commentary of retrieving the concept of "spirit" from the Bible belters.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a...r-spirituality

[Daniel Noyes]

Most religious people are anti- people of other religions. Atheists pretty much just ask you to practice YOUR religion, but let others practice theirs, and let those who don't believe simply not believe.

Look at some of the leaders in the world that thought they were doing God's work.

Can you give an example of an Atheistic goverment that "just ask you to practice YOUR religion, but let others practice theirs,"

All of the Atheistic goverments that come to my mind... USSR, Poland, E Germany, China, have been major Big Brother types outlawing, persecuting, imprisoning etc christians and other religions...



Look at some of the leaders in the world that thought they were doing ...Atheist... work

[Osborne Russell]

Can you give an example of an Atheistic goverment that "just ask you to practice YOUR religion, but let others practice theirs,"

The United States of America.

[Durnik]

To answer the original question posted: NO!

Nothing else matters but how I raise my children ... and their opinion of me, as a father.

Hmm, seems you contradict yourself..

This would puzzle most Brits. We don't make a public show of our religion, and are more interested in the competence of our representatives after their politics. Their religion or lack is of little interest.

Old Dryfoot gave a clue in his quotes..

...they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.

As ELF so aptly notes, the party on the right (AKA, the wrong) is all about keeping (one particular, rather large, group of) people in fear.. then appealing to them in the name of the god they made for support in 'delivering them from the evil they fear'.. which, of course, is never done.. For an ironic twist, see the story of the minister finding satan dying on the side of the road.. ;-)

More than a few have noted that the U.S. most proclaims its Christian status.. while least living the Christian ideal..

enjoy
bobby