Understandable. I’ve seen it argued that Jesus would have been similarly surprised.
I read in What Lincoln Believed about how Lincoln, in his youth, wrote a book demolishing Christianity.
It was never published. A friend pointed out how that would doom Lincoln’s political ambitions, and he took it to heart and burned the manuscript.
Because there is no way to settle the question?
Depends on your definition of “settle”. I think it’s settled as well as is the question of whether astrology is valid, whether there are mermaids and sirens, etc. if you take the strict “can’t prove a negative” position, then all matter of nonsensical claims could have their truth value described as “unsettled”.
ETA: And even with such a ridiculously strict standard, you are going to assert that it couldn’t be settled in the theist direction at least, if God started doing miracles all over the place like he supposedly used to?
No. Those things all have more precise agreed definitions than God. They’re testable propositions at least in principle.
No. How do I know that’s actually him? The voice out of the burning bush might be God, or Satan, or something from an entirely different mythology, or an ET with indistinguishable-from-magic technology and a mischievous sense of humor, or those funny-tasting mushrooms I just ate.
Sure, and maybe the Earth really is six thousand years old, and God faked the evidence for its being much older, to test our faith. Or maybe we’re all in the Matrix. Or just I am, or I’m on the Truman Show…
ETA: Almost overlooked something else: so you believe we can prove mermaids don’t exist? What if a mermaidist insisted they are just really good at hiding?
SlackerInc writes:
> Or maybe we’re all in the Matrix. Or just I am . . .
Um, SlackerInc, there’s something we should tell you now, I guess. We’ve done a good job of hiding it from you so far, but now it’s time to be honest. You are in the Matrix.
Then there still should be mermaids and proto-mermaids in the fossil record.
God covered them up.
Thanks for the honesty, Wendell. 
I’m an atheist who struggled with the question, “How can a smart person believe in religion” for a long time. I think the answer is to remember that, like all thoughts, god is an idea. Everyone has ideas, some good, some bad. Being smart doesn’t make anyone immune to bad ideas.
In reality, it’s not that I specifically think there’s no god; strictly speaking, I don’t know, and will never know unless some god makes a public appearance. It’s just that I’ve never seen one and nobody has ever described one I could believe in. Clearly, theists don’t have that problem.
I’ve come to the conclusion that people generally don’t disagree due to differences in intelligence level; they disagree due to differences in what they value.
So, to repeat my question: columnist George Will is a publicly self-professed agnostic. Despite not believing in God, he holds most of the same positions as the Religious Right on most of the hot button issues.
Suppose that agnostic Will were running for President against (since somebody won’t buy Jimmy Carter as a liberal Democrat, I’ll change my example) Mario Cuomo, who proclaims himself a devout Catholic.
I would gladly vote for Will over my fellow Catholic Cuomo. Does that make you secularists happy? Aren’t you thrilled at how open-minded I am, at how I don’t impose religious litmus tests on candidates?
Something tells me secularists would overwhelmingly vote for Cuomo!
Have there been any studies on that? That is, on the correlation of intelligence, or other measurable personal psychological characteristics, with content and/or strength of religious belief?
I find this view shocking, if not outright laughable. I am probably what you’d consider one of those “religious people,” yet I neither hold hostile views of atheists nor hear those views expressed by other Christians I know. In fact, the amount of vitriolic hatred I hear/see expressed toward Christians far outweighs what I’ve heard from them. Assuming it’s true that the bishop (quoted above) said that, it’s hypocritical, un-Christian, hyperbolic crap, the likes of which (happily) I haven’t heard before on this side of the fence. Perhaps I’m just hanging out with the right crowd? :dubious:
I find it hard to believe than anyone, either atheist or Christian, can’t just put aside that single difference without being snarky and/or judgmental about the other person’s entire intellect or worldview. I believe; my mom’s husband doesn’t. It doesn’t of necessity mean either of us is credible, stupid, backward, or even damned (from my perspective!)…just that we don’t see likewise on this one issue.
As far as the original question goes, I not only think it’s possible that one could be elected but am surprised that this is even a question, given the marginal or nonexistent religious beliefs of many elected leaders. In fact, I think recent elections show distinct reluctance to elect the most overtly religious candidates.
You sound like a white person denying that significant racism exists because you haven’t experienced it aimed at you.
It’s hardly “un-Christian”, it’s the Christian norm.
I suggest that you read history or the news then.
Given how blatantly false and outright silly religion is, of course it requires believers to be credulous. What other word is there for an adult who is doing the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus? It’s not like the falsehood of religion is hard to figure out; anyone intelligent enough to function as an independent adult is smart enough to see through religion. Since it isn’t stupidity, that leaves credulousness.
Der Trihs:
It doesn’t seem that what I was trying to say came across right. Let me try again…
I’m not denying that hatred of atheists doesn’t exist. I’m saying that it’s been far from my experience–either in the places I’ve lived, online, or in the media. Anecdotal evidence isn’t the strongest means of proof, but I’m responding specifically to the (anecdotal) statement that this kind of hatred “is everywhere.”
It is un-Christian to spew hatred; the point of Christianity is love. As Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” It fails to live up to Christian standards, making it un-Christian. That the followers (not excluding this one) fall so short so often is pitiful, but such is the case with almost any great ideal.
I don’t mean that I’m denying it…just that it’s hard to comprehend why people can’t put that difference aside.
I’ll leave aside the nastiness about credibility, since I don’t want to engage in personal attacks.
No; the point of Christianity is to maximize the number of people in the world who call themselves Christian, and to destroy all rival belief systems. Christianity has nothing to do with love; if it is strongly associated with any emotion, it’s hate. “Christianity is love/is about love” is just a nice sounding propaganda line that has nothing to do with actual Christianity. And I’ll also say that I personally find “Christianity = love” rather creepy, not endearing.
Christ has about as much to do with Christianity as Mickey Mouse does with Disney; he’s a symbol, a logo. He’s not really relevant to their actual practices.
FYI:
If you want to choose out of context verses, at least this one has the benefit of being given weight in Scripture itself. I’m not even sure how to begin responding to the claim that Christianity isn’t about Christ.:rolleyes: