But we have good evidence that there are elections, that the outcome of those elections (who wins) correlates heavily with votes (specifically, which side gets the most votes), and that if we were to run some kind of controlled experiment or study in which an election was held, but one side was prevented from voting, the other side would be likely to win and so on…
Can we do that with prayer? Like, say we decided to hold an election where a blindfolded judge pulls a candidate’s name out of a hat (and maybe this judge doesn’t even know what the purpose of their selection is, what they’re selecting for or who they’re selecting), and people are directed to cast their vote by dividing up into a room corresponding with their candidate, and then praying together for their guy or gal to win (to have god intercede to pick their candidate’s name out of the hat). We could have a separate party, maybe one who also doesn’t know why they’re there, just that they’ve been told to count heads, tally up the members in each room so we’d know which candidate has the most people praying for them, and then compare the predicted outcome of prayer is akin to voting through a series of empirical tests.
I think we both know how that’d turn out.
See, this prayer=voting thing is, like many claims of a religious nature, actually testable. You can twist definitions and strain logic to try and come up with some false equivalence between voting and prayer as equally worthless or equally irrational in terms of getting a desired outcome and therefore equally worthy of ridicule by atheists and theists alike on the grounds of being honest and consistent, but that’s just the thing. It’s a false equivalence. We can show through testing, through double-blind studies, and all that science stuff that has yet to demonstrate that a god exists which one may effect an election and which one apparently will not.
It would be interesting to test that. By voting day, 870 prospects for the House have already been chosen by partisan machines. If blind judges picked 435 of them at random, would the Congress be any less representative of the will of the people?
I wonder how many people who say they wouldn’t vote for an atheist would have a problem with someone who says “my faith is my own private business” or “Although I don’t belong to a church, I respect all religions”. My point is that many Christians believe, and you tell me with what justification, that someone in a leadership position who states firmly that they are an atheist might be aggressively anti-Christian or anti-religion. Aggressive in the sense of pushing through legislation which causes hardship to religious believers. Even if you are not religious you might as a voter have a problem with that.
From reading the Dope I get the sense that many self-professed atheists are indeed very anti-religion indeed.
As a staunch believer in the separation of Church and State, I would much prefer an atheist over a drum beating self-proclaimed Christian who seeks political currency by pandering to the Religious Right. Though a Christian myself, I dislike the phrase, “Christian Nation”. That does not denote religious freedom. Religious freedom means all beliefs, including no belief.
Many religious people make the huge the mistake of thinking that a *lack *of privilege for their organisation/beliefs/activities is in some way anti-religious. It isn’t.
for example, If I disestablished the Church of England I’m sure the anglican hierarchy would complain that it was anti-religious. Even though it is demonstrably and obviously merely placing that religious group on the same footing as everyone else.
I don’t think that is necessarily the case, as most atheists really don’t care about anyone’s this or that beliefs. However, when these beliefs start edging into legislation you can expect a loud and vocal reaction. I think it is mistake to assume atheists are anti-religious, as they are more just anti-don’t-push-your-shit-on-me. Government should be secular.
Yeah, I go through spurts where I’ll use a sharpie to get rid of the “in god we trust” statement on my paper money. It really should not be there, as it is a false statement.
You previously said: “It is my onion, based on sample observation, that atheists think they are less inclined than Christians to accept beliefs based on dubious evidence.”
In what way is the evidence dubious that voting has the potential to impact elections? You can equivocate all you want—certainly it helps to make your motives here very clear—but it doesn’t change the fact that the side with the most votes tends to win (even if it’s through electors, rather than direct votes from people) and prayer has yet to be demonstrated to do anything except maybe make the person doing the prayer calmer, in line with meditation.
The evidence is in: voting by itself, particularly as a bloc (like, say, a political party), can influence elections. We have many such examples of votes effecting the outcome of elections. The “will of the people” truly could be expressed through voting if those people are allowed to and then go on to vote. Prayer, not so much.
But feel free to dig in as much as you want on this.
I was very surprised to learn that the Pledge of Allegiance did not include the phrase “under God” until the 1950s. I’ve also seen video of children at Muslim parochial schools saying it as “one nation, under Allah.”
Starting around age 11 or 12, I just didn’t say those words. I always thought having to say the pledge of allegiance every day in school was kind of creepy anyway.
It was part of being against godless Commies. Did you know that the pledge, without mention of god, was originally written by a Baptist minister? Who was a socialist. They made Baptists different in 1892.