Well, there’s Keith Ellison, he’s a Muslim and he’s in Congress. Whether Muslims worship a “Judeo-Christian God” is debatable. Mohammed apparently did the get the idea from Jews and Christians. (But did not really understand them – in fact, he appears to have been rather surprised, late in life, to learn that Christians did not consider themselves a kind of Jew.)
Jesus fucking Christ, please do not try to speak for me as an atheist. I believe absolutely nothing like that, and I’m embarrassed to be associated with that viewpoint.
Isn’t that sort of the definition of credulous? I’m certainly not going to claim that most believers are crazy, but credulous seems very apt.
Keep in mind we’re not talking about credulously believing something trivial. Most believers claim that their religion is extremely important to them. Christians usually believe that some form of eternal punishment and / or reward awaits them after death depending on their actions and / or faith. They generally believe that not only did Yahweh create the universe, but also has a list of important rules and guidelines he wants the inhabitants of the universe to follow.
If someone believes their eternal fate, the difference between unending joy and unending suffering, relies on following a particular set of rules and rule-giver then one would expect them to be very, very careful about following the right set of rules and the correct rule-giver. If they largely accept the religious culture of their surroundings with little critical thought (as most of them seem to) then I think the word “credulous” fits perfectly.
(I will gladly concede that many religious believers are credulous primarily with regards to their religious beliefs, and are non-credulous when buying used cars, examining advertising, and reading emails from Nigerian princes.)
I see that someone else has mentioned the Clintons. How about Obama? He was president of the Law Review at Harvard Law School and taught Constitutional Law. Something makes me think he may have taken the Bar Exam along the way. Or were you kidding us?
Social appeal of Oprah? Oh, pleeeaase, Marley! How can you insult atheists that way?
I think you are teasing, too.
We’ll have a gay president long before an atheist president.
I don’t think people with hangups about atheists object to them because of this, though. It is more likely that they see the atheists as being the nutso ones.
The majority, as a group, is rarely self-conscious about how the minority sees them.
I think it’s just that people don’t evaluate epistomological claims the same way they evaluate factual ones.
Well, it works sometimes, as when passive resistance gets lots of pictures of nonviolent protesters getting police dogs and firehoses used on them.
It’s hard to get atheists to embrace martyrdom, though.
As an atheist, I don’t think religious people are crazy, even if their beliefs appear rather like symptoms of it. It seems clear to me that human minds are great at compartmentalizing and that we’re rather inclined to hold on to some form of belief that defies reason. I do think that religious beliefs indicate that a person is unwilling to be as self-critical as would be optimal, but I suspect plenty of atheists hold another, less obvious belief that is just as immune to criticism in their minds.
Oprah was mentioned in the OP, and the general idea was that she’s popular and well-liked by lots of people. I’m saying I have trouble imagining an outspoken atheist getting to that level of popularity today.
Yes, in case it needs to be said: I am aware that we have ahd quite a few lawyers elected/running for President (and other major public office).
Atheists may think very religious people are credulous but most understand the power of upbringing and authority figures on people’s belief systems. Saying that atheists dismiss religious people as being credulous is too simplistic, IMO.
There also may be a strong evolutionary adaptation for social, thinking animals like us to be somewhat inclined toward religious or at least supernatural beliefs. We adapted to try to find purpose and meaning to things so that we can find patterns and predict outcomes.
Even scientists like to explain their work with terminology they know are wrong.They’ll use terms like “design” and give molecules missions and purposes they clearly know they don’t have. Then they catch themselves and everyone has a bit of a laugh.
Lying. Or at least keeping the candidate’s atheism under wraps. Sucks, but 'tis so.
No, he didn’t think it was perfectly reasonable. He disagreed, strongly, with the view that God exists or that religion was overall a good thing.
But, knowing that many brilliant people have been believers, that he encountered in his long and interesting life lots of sane and intelligent people who were religious, and that it really isn’t likely that “most” of the people around him were insane or stupid, he concluded that reasonable people might differ on this as on many other points.
I am much more baffled by your system. Do you really meet someone, notice that they are well-read, have a quick mind and a good understanding, then on learning that the person is religious decide he or she is crazy or stupid?
For the record, my remark about Millard Fillmore’s beauty and charm was also facetious. One look at the man explains how he was able to overcome the unfair prejudices of the average citizen of the day and win his enthusiastic vote:
“Nowhere” is too strong. We have at least one Muslim Representative and two or three “non-believers” in Congress, (not sure if they are openly agnostic as opposed to atheist). In addition, we have had one openly atheist governor elected, (Jesse Ventura).
Certainly, is would be extremely difficult for people who are neither Jews nor Christians to be elected to any national office from a number of states. However, it has already happened, so it is hardly impossible.
I doubt that an openly atheist person could be elected to the presidency in the next ten years. Beyond that, I would not offer any prognostications. Look at the speed with which opposition to Same Sex Marriage moved from an overwhelming majority in 2004 to a shrinking, if still large, minority in 2013. Without knowing what atheists are actually considering a run for national office, it is impossible to say that one could never succeed. If one tried for the presidency in 2016, he or she would fail. By 2020? Who knows?
I want to give an example of how useless statements like “There will never be an atheist President” are. Let’s take the statement “There will never be a black President” and look at fictional portrayals of black Presidents. The first significant one not meant humorously was probably the President in Irving Wallace’s novel The Man, which was published in 1964.
He believed that the only way a black man could become President was through a long series of coincidences. First, a black senator was elected. Second, he was elected President Pro Tem of the Senate out of tokenism. Third, the Vice-President dies of natural causes. Third, the President and the Speaker of the House are both killed in the same accident. Clearly, Wallace (who was actually fairly liberal for his times) believed that no black man could ever be elected President in an ordinary election. (And we won’t even talk about a woman being elected President.) Forty-four years later a black man was elected President.
Never say never.
Well, I think it is it more likely we will get a president who is agnostic, but just not outspoken about it. Someone who doesn’t attend church, but when asked, characterizes their religious nature as private, or only mentions what their upbringing was but not their current beliefs.
Thank you! Great explanation.
From wikipedia:
The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:
Arkansas:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[80]
Maryland:
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[81]
Mississippi:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[82]
North Carolina:
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[83]
South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[84]
Tennessee:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[85]
Texas:
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[86]
An eighth state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.
Pennsylvania:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[87]