This is good as it means only smart people will be voting.

Very few of them have any REAL faith, it's just lipservice for the cameras. Just showing up at a church for photo ops does not make you a Christian.

Most of the agnostics I've encountered are far more tolerant of religion than of Atheism, I doubt there are any candidates religious enough to get a rise out of them (as long as they subscribe to the right brand of God, of course... good old USA Jesus brand).

They all have to act religious, but Huckabee is the only one that actually believes that crap.

Yep, if they don't at least act religious (and by religious I mean Christian) they have no chance in hell of getting elected.

I don't find Kucinich distressingly religious.

"There is no candidate that an atheist would vote for ... other than maybe Ron Paul," Shermer said, naming a Tennessee lawmaker, a long-shot Republican contender.

I didn't know there were two Ron Paul's running. Shame neither has a a chance.

The atheists have to be talking for the agnostics here. Agnostics are good people and 9 times out of 10 wouldn't care whether a person is religious or not.

Agnostics, the only intelligent group of nonbelievers out there.

Flame on!

No atheists or agnostics in hell...

chestermania: No atheists or agnostics in hell...

None in Narnia either.

I'm only distressed that this discussion is taking time and effort away from our atheist War on Christmas. If we're not especially vigilant, here in the last week before X-Day, Christmas just might survive after all!

TheConvincingSavant: Agnostics, the only intelligent group of nonbelievers out there.

This may be splitting hairs here but

Agnosticism says "we can't know if god(s) exist".

Atheism says "I don't believe god(s) exist".

I say that it's possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

I don't believe it's possible for us to know for certain if god(s) exist (that's the agnostic part). Although I acknowledge that it is possible, the probability is so small that I personally don't believe (that's the atheist part) and nothing short of overwhelming preponderance of evidence to the existence of god(s) would change that view.

Go Go Chinchilla!: Because you're one? Spare me.

Actually, I'm not. You have just been spared.

I just respect their opionion. I would respect the opinion of atheists if they would acknowledge they hold a core set of beliefs, just like people of faith.

And no lordargent, you can't be both.

TheConvincingSavant: And no lordargent, you can't be both.

Says you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

willywanka: I don't find Kucinich distressingly religious.

And nobody considers him a viable candidate either.

TheConvincingSavant: Agnostics, the only intelligent group of nonbelievers out there.

"Agnostics: atheists without balls" -Stephen Colbert

TheConvincingSavant: I would respect the opinion of atheists if they would acknowledge they hold a core set of beliefs, just like people of faith.

Except there isn't a core set of beliefs. There is a belief. Singular. Only one. "There is no evidence of a supernatural divine entity." Beyond that, atheists are more varied than skin color. Some are extreme, and piss everyone off (even, to some extent, other atheists), some are more moderate, and some are just indifferent. And still there are other shades of atheism.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, isn't technically a belief system at all. It's an acknowledgement of the limits of their own knowledge. So there can be agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

Meh... The godless heathens don't deserve representation.

/flame on
//godless heathen

TheConvincingSavant: And no lordargent, you can't be both.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

You absolutely can be both.

If your going to disparage belief systems, you should at least know what the hell your talking about.

I expect candidates to talk about issues that I don't care about. This is a large nation with a diverse population and there are many many many issues, religion is one of them. I have a small set of issues that I care about, religion is NOT one of them. I simply wait for candidates to talk about issues that I do care about and then decide which candidate is most similar to my views.

A suggestion for other atheists: don't try to speak for me and stop whining.

TheConvincingSavant: The atheists have to be talking for the agnostics here. Agnostics are good people and 9 times out of 10 wouldn't care whether a person is religious or not.

Agnostics, the only intelligent group of nonbelievers out there.

I consider myself to be a an athiest. I

In general, I could give a shiat whether or not you are religious. But I definately have a problem with people who want to inject religion into politics and legislate religious morality down my throat, or otherwise push their values on me. I believe this is the case for most people who call themselves athiests.

Atheists should vote for the one candidate who is going to reduce government influence (including religious garbage) on our lives - and that's Ron Paul. No "maybe" about it, he's the best choice we have.

It is inaccurate to describe atheism as a belief system. To say, "There is no meaningful evidence that there is a god, therefore I hold the null hypothesis (there is no god)" is no more a "belief" than saying "The planets remain in their orbits due to the force of gravity".

These are quantified statements, open to discussion and debate, and they could be instantly revised if new evidence appears. I do not believe that there is no god- I state it as true because there is no evidence that convinces me otherwise.

JohanW: Atheists should vote for the one candidate who is going to reduce government influence (including religious garbage) on our lives - and that's Ron Paul. No "maybe" about it, he's the best choice we have.

I won't argue- he's the best choice, sure. He's not a terribly good choice, mind you. But that's the way politics works- there hasn't been a good choice since Teddy Roosevelt.

t3knomanser
there hasn't been a good choice since Teddy Roosevelt.

Barry Goldwater?

JohanW: Atheists should vote for the one candidate who is going to reduce government influence (including religious garbage) on our lives - and that's Ron Paul. No "maybe" about it, he's the best choice we have.

Except that Ron Paul is one of the War on Christmas crusaders.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." Link (pops like a tart)

Yeah, I've got problems with that.

Amen to that!


Ooops, I mean... YEAH! Me too!

/Don't hate religious folks, just some of them freak me out.

To play devil's advocate here, could one consider the framework itself of atheism to be a form of belief?

In other words, could atheism be considered a belief system in that one is using materialist criteria (as opposed to some other form of experience) in order to judge something?

Kome: Agnosticism, on the other hand, isn't technically a belief system at all. It's an acknowledgement of the limits of their own knowledge. So there can be agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

TheConvincingSavant: And no lordargent, you can't be both.

Yes you can. They are not mutually exclusive.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: Barry Goldwater?

In your heart you know he's right!

Some of us atheists aren't one-issue voters. I support Obama despite him being religious. I may be atheist, but most of the country isn't, and if we have to have someone religious, they should at least be pragmatic about it.

Damnhippyfreak: To play devil's advocate here, could one consider the framework itself of atheism to be a form of belief?

In other words, could atheism be considered a belief system in that one is using materialist criteria (as opposed to some other form of experience) in order to judge something?

It's not really a "framework" of belief. It's just a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Materialism or whatever isn't necessarily part of it. The only way I would say it's a belief akin to religion is if an atheist claimed to possess special knowledge of the correctness of their beliefs (making them a "gnostic atheist"). Religion, on the other hand, almost always claims to possess special revelation about the nature of God, the universe, etc. Not always (yes, there are agnostic theists), but usually. Otherwise, why would someone believe in something that isn't supported by naturalistic evidence?

hej:
In general, I could give a shiat whether or not you are religious. But I definately have a problem with people who want to inject religion into politics and legislate religious morality down my throat, or otherwise push their values on me. I believe this is the case for most people who call themselves athiests.

What hej said, except with atheists spelled right! ;)

As an atheist, I would fully expect the first openly atheist candidate to be a total wackjob. At least that would open the door in the future.

I'm an atheist and I don't give a damn if any of the candidates are Christian. If they try to shove it down my throat like most Republicans, however...

Gravel's a Unitarian, which is certainly a Good Thing compared to what most of the candidates believe. (But I'd rather see Kucinich in office even with his Catholicism; as much as I want to see a non-Christian president to piss off the fundies and stuff, it's not worth the FairTax.)

birdboy2000: Gravel's a Unitarian, which is certainly a Good Thing compared to what most of the candidates believe. (But I'd rather see Kucinich in office even with his Catholicism; as much as I want to see a non-Christian president to piss off the fundies and stuff, it's not worth the FairTax.)

Gravel is also crazy as a loon. He's right about a lot of things, but he's still a crazy old man.

I'm happy with any candidate who is willing to strictly respect the separation of church and state and the principles of secularism. This is the only way we can preserve either religious or political freedom in a country as diverse as the United States.

Is Hillary a closet fundie or a godless communist? I can never get a straight answer from you farkers.

Mnemia: It's not really a "framework" of belief. It's just a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Materialism or whatever isn't necessarily part of it. The only way I would say it's a belief akin to religion is if an atheist claimed to possess special knowledge of the correctness of their beliefs (making them a "gnostic atheist"). Religion, on the other hand, almost always claims to possess special revelation about the nature of God, the universe, etc. Not always (yes, there are agnostic theists), but usually. Otherwise, why would someone believe in something that isn't supported by naturalistic evidence?


Good post. What I was getting at in my previous post is that does the idea that you wrote out in of itself constitute a belief. What you have outlined is a mental construct. Would subscribing to that construct be considered a "belief"?

To approach it in a separate way, would the materialist framework that is necessary to reject the "special revelation" provided by theism be considered in of itself a "belief"?

/making sure everyone knows I still have my devil's advocate hat on

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. --George Bush Sr.

It's been that way for several decades. Welcome to modern American politics.

We will never have peace until we remove religion from government.

It ain't easy being an Athiest republican

I'm an atheist, and I realize that I'll never get my way when it comes to the faith (or lack thereof) of political candidates as long as this country is as overwhelmingly Christian as it is. I just wish that the level of the discourse in this country didn't require candidates to routinely lie about or exaggerate their beliefs. It would be refreshing to hear a candidate not have to pander to Christians and keep their faith (or lack thereof) to themselves.

TheConvincingSavant: The atheists have to be talking for the agnostics here. Agnostics are good people and 9 times out of 10 wouldn't care whether a person is religious or not.

Agnostics, the only intelligent group of nonbelievers out there.

A theist is just an atheist that has one more God to reject after rejecting 99% that are already out there. Agnostics on the other hand, can't seem to make a judgment call on any of the Gods -- Jesus or Thor? The both seem just as plausible. An atheist sees all Gods as ridiculous figments of the imagination.

Desterion: It ain't easy being an Athiest republican

There were a few openly atheist republicans going back to the Eisenhower administration. My how far we've come.

As a nontheist, I believe in God. He's the greatest human invention yet.

Kome: "There is no objective evidence of a supernatural divine entity."

For Agnostics, also strike "There is" for "I have observed".

DarnoKonrad: A theist is just an atheist that has one more God to reject after rejecting 99% that are already out there.

I'm always amazed that people confuse God with religions.

Yet another thread in which some farker gets it 100% wrong, is called on it multiple times, and doesn't have the nads to show their face again. Typical.

Yeah, it's real reasonable that people who actually believe in, or pretend to believe in, a magic sky man who created everything are the only ones eligible for elective office in this country. Ron Reagan (son of the pres) put it this way : "an atheist can't be elected dogcatcher in this country".

And don't forget this facepalm:

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George H.W. Bush