Will their ever be a publicly atheist American President?

[Imperialmajesty]

I was responding to the poster who implied that all Christians were bigoted because one poster said he would not vote for an atheist.

No, but most are.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/

 

[Counterclaw]

Bashing a person based on nothing but their religious beliefs is very different to pointing out that a person is intolerant and bigoted and uses their religious beliefs to justify their intolerant bigotry.

Surely the difference is not too difficult for you to grasp?

I wasn't saying your comments were bigoted. (Although, they were, because you made a blanket statement about how everyone disliked evangelical Christians, after one poster made an anti-atheist comment) I was simply pointing out that there are atheist bigots as well.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Hurray for religious discrimination!

I think you're abusing the word "discrimination". Is the Richard Dawkins Award religiously discriminatory?

 

[Gilder]

I'm just pointing out that some atheists are just as intolerant as some Christians.
Not every evangelical Christian is a bigot, not every atheist is intolerant. But if
we're going to be lumping groups together and bashing every member in them
because of the statements of individual members, well, hey, atheists have plenty of bigots on their side too.

Hrm....

First of all, someone saying that they wouldn't vote for an atheist isn't necessarily bigotry. Maybe they wouldn't do so because atheists in this country have been waging war against Christians for years. A practicing Christian might not want to elect an atheist, because an atheist would be more likely to sign bills that threaten religious freedom than a religious person would, simply because religion is not sacred to an atheist.

Just because some people on one side does it, doesn't make it okay for you to do the same to them.

 

[Counterclaw]

Gee, Christians persecute atheists and a minority of atheists get fed up enough to shoot back. What effrontery those nasty atheist have. How could they possibly have the shear unmitigated gall to stand up for themselves.

And it wasn't atheists attacking Palin for being a Christian, it was any sane person attacking her for being a ultra radical extremist. There is a vast difference between the 2.

Being a minority is not an excuse for bigotry. Nor does it make bigotry any more justified. Furthermore, I don't think that most atheists persecute Christians because they themselves have been persecuted. I think they do it because they find themselves superior.

What, in particular, would you say makes Palin extreme? Most of the people I've heard bash her seem to think that her religious views ARE what makes her extreme.

 

[bhsup]

Why is "refusing to vote for" suddenly "bashing"?

 

[Counterclaw]

Hrm....



Just because some people on one side does it, doesn't make it okay for you to do the same to them.

I said that an atheist would be MORE LIKELY to sign such a bill than a religious person, because religious people hold the freedom of religion sacred. An atheist does not, because he does not believe in a God. This isn't a stereotype, it is a reality based on the definition of atheism.

 

[kulade]

this discussion is great

"Atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

"well atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

"well atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

"well atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

etc

 

[Counterclaw]

And tell me, haven't Christians been waging a war against any non-Christian religion or non-religion for millennia?

As to the rest, well, seriously? You are calling out American Atheists for being intolerant? You are a moron, and its about damn time someon called you out on it.

Different groups of Christians have been doing different things. Some are evangelical, some are not. Some wage war against other religions, some have members of other religions practicing in their services. Some expel gays, some have gay ministers.

And yes. I do think many American atheists are intolerant. Take you. You just called me a moron for disagreeing with your position. What an amazing display of tolerance!

 

[Gilder]

I said that an atheist would be MORE LIKELY to sign such a bill than a religious person, because religious people hold the freedom of religion sacred. An atheist does not, because he does not believe in a God. This isn't a stereotype, it is a reality based on the definition of atheism.

Yes. It is a stereotype. It's a stereotype because you're assuming that that atheists don't use/cherish freedom of religion and would be "more likely*" to sign off on such a bill. The problem is atheists are also using freedom of religion by choosing not to partake in it. They are not forced to go to church or worship, but merely choose not to participate in religion.

*By the way, you contradict yourself even when you used more likely. A sentence later you generalized that an atheist doesn't enjoy freedom of religion because he doesn't believe in God.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

this discussion is great

"Atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

"well atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

"well atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

"well atheists only persecute Christian because Christians persecute them..."

"well Christians only persecute atheists because Atheists persecute them..."

etc

Also, Romans persecuted Christians for being Atheists.

 

[Counterclaw]

Consider a bill that forbade practicing religion.
Who would have more of a problem with it?
Someone who practices a religion or someone who does not?

 

[Kerozine]

Consider a bill that forbade practicing religion.
Who would have more of a problem with it?

Liberals.

Someone who practices a religion or someone who does not?

The former. The latter couldn't care less, unless he or she were a liberal.

 

[Gilder]

Consider a bill that forbade practicing religion.
Who would have more of a problem with it?
Someone who practices a religion or someone who does not?

Both, hopefully and ideally. The religious are obviously going to have more of a problem with it, but that's hardly going to automatically mean the atheists will be all for it.

Consider a bill that restricts African American's rights to do as they wish. Surely the Caucasians will have a much less problem with it.

 

[Miles Teg]

Consider a bill that forbade practicing religion.
Who would have more of a problem with it?
Someone who practices a religion or someone who does not?

The question of who, on a personal level, would have more of a problem with it is irrelevant. The fact is, a couple fanatics aside, atheists intensely value freedom of religion, because we benefit most from it. Any of the atheist who would sign a bill "outlawing religion" not going to get into public office, I think that's pretty clear.

 

[Counterclaw]

Exactly, Kerozine. So my point, Gilder, is that someone like VRWC_Agent might not vote for an atheist because he is aware than an atheist might not protect his religious
rights. That would not be a matter of bigotry, it would just be a matter of concern. Now, I have no idea what the real reason for his comment was, but I didn't think it
was fair to label him a bigot without more information.

 

[snakeseare]

atheists in this country have been
waging war against Christians for years.

No, there is no "war against Christians."

What you are told is a "war" is nothing but a defence of religious freedom in the face of a relentless campaign by certain Christians to establish Christianity as the state religion in the US. To wit:

 

[Counterclaw]

Both, hopefully and ideally. The religious are obviously going to have more of a problem with it, but that's hardly going to automatically mean the atheists will be all for it.

I agree with you on this one. Hopefully and ideally you're right. And I wasn't saying all atheists would be all for it. I just said they would be more likely to do so than a Christian.

 

[Gilder]

Exactly, Kerozine. So my point, Gilder, is that someone like VRWC_Agent might not vote for an atheist because he is aware than an atheist might not protect his religious rights.

This is silly, because like Miles (and I repeated a few posts above), atheists benefit from religious freedom just as much as the religious do. Your scenario is completely wonky because your assuming that atheists, because the bill hardly affects them at all, would be all for something that strips away someone else right to worship. Which is just terrible logic and really just unjustified fears.

I agree with you on this one. Hopefully and ideally you're right. And I wasn't saying all atheists would be all for it. I just said they would be more likely to do so than a Christian.

Except they're no likely bound to do it than a person of a different religious denomination than you has of outlawing your certain denomination.

 

[Akka]

Not if its up to me.

So you wouldn't vote for someone who may be sharing your value simply because he just happen to not share your belief ?

I will never understand fanaticism.