Yes.
I don’t know. Could you repeat the question?
Sorry, been watching a lot of Malcolm lately. 
The cite goes to a study of how belief in God varies with age. But the question asked was not whether belief in God varied with age, but whether tolerance of atheism varied with age.
On the one hand, you’d think that since a greater proportion of young people are atheist than is true for the population as a whole, then young people in general ought to be more exposed to atheism in their social circles, more familiar with it, and therefore less likely to exhibit fear, resentment or intolerance.
On the other hand, young people are notoriously conformist, and can punish those who deviate from the social norm with great intensity. So its conceivabel that those young people who are intolerant of atheism are voluble in expressing their intolerance, and in imposing it on people. As we get older we get more mellow, and are less threatened by the discovery that there are people in our social circle who differ from us.
Satanism should be rated above atheism, barring those Christians who think atheism and Satanism are the same thing (yes, they exist). Satanists still uphold faith, just the “wrong” one; “it’s better to kill for Kali” and uphold faith than to do good and be a faithless atheist.
Laughable. :rolleyes:
What exactly is laughable?
They would have to do more than just not “be identified”: they would have to actively lie. The background to presidential candidates is subject to hostile scrutiny down to the smallest publically available (and not so publically available) detail. If no positive religious comment or behaviour could be identified questions would be asked, and unless the candidate lied and said they were religious, they would be screwed.
Well, it depends on whether you count as “atheist” someone who has lost all interest in religion and no longer expressed opinions on religious questions. Lots of people will have some evidence of a connection with a church in their past, and possibly some record of having something more or less theist on one or more occasions, and even now would do things like attend church wedding and church funerals. But such a person might be completely disconnected from religion and have no religious beliefs nor any interest in religious questions. Given that it’s socially accepable in the US to be “not very religious”, not go to church, not talk about religion, would such a candidate not escape critical scrutiny into his current beliefs?
I’m not from the US but from what I read here and elsewhere, this is only true of parts of the US. In other parts it would be a death sentence to anyone getting through the primaries in those parts. And given how close primaries usually are, that means you wouldn’t make it.
How often did Reagan go to church during his presidency? Bush? Both of them used religion in some of there rhetoric, but neither was particularly active in religion. Obama has gone to church infrequently since becoming president, and I’d say he’s probably one of the more religious recent presidents. I think a Democrat could get away saying “I grew up going to a Methodist church” or “Those nuns sure knew how to put the fear of god into me”. I agree that you probably couldn’t openly avow atheism at this moment, and if you refused to be sworn in on a bible you’d get a lot of flack.
The notion that Christians would think that Satanism was a good thing, even to the point of murdering in the name of the Devil. But I doubt either Velocity or I or any appeal to rationality will sway you in your views.
You are strawmanning something chronic since in now way did Der Trihs say anything as simplistically dumb as that Christians would think that Satanism was a good thing.
For my part I don’t know that he is correct but I wouldn’t be too quick to assume he’s wrong. Love is close to hate and what really, really upsets people is indifference.
Satanists’ worldview - involving as it does copious amounts of supernatural mumbo jumbo - is arguably far closer to a Christian worldview than an atheist worldview which thinks its all laughable.
A Satanist to a Christian is potentially a misguided Christian. An atheist who just snerks at the very idea of “gods”, worship etc may be far more threatening.
My quote that “it’s better to kill for Kali than to be an atheist” was paraphrased from memory by something written by (IIRC) a bishop in the religion section of the newspaper when I was a kid. The phrase stuck in my head. His argument was that upholding faith is so very important that it’s better to kill for a “false goddess” than to have none.
And I’ve heard time and time again that anything is better than not having faith. I’ve seen parents on 60 Minutes tell a national audience that they’d prefer that their children commit suicide rather than be an atheist. I’ve seen priests argue that research into life extension must be opposed because that gives people hope, while fear of death creates despair; and since despair leads to faith despair is good and hope is evil. And again and again any and every atrocity was justified during the Cold War because the Communists were atheists and anything up to and including destroying civilization was better than atheism.
So yes; I think that a great many Christians would prefer someone who murders for the Devil over an atheist who does good deeds, because the murderer is upholding his faith and nothing matters more than faith. Not even all of humanity, much less the lives of a few people. For many Christians atheism is the ultimate of evils.
If someone inquires as to my religion, my instinctive response is “five and a quarter inches”, which a vulgar way of saying that I consider that a very personal question, drop it. But, around here, it almost never comes up.
It appears that US Senator Patty Murray of Washington may be some form of unbeliever, even wikipedia makes no mention of her religion. In most of western Washington, it would be a non-issue, but there is a dark underbelly once you cross the Cascades, discretion would be called for.
The answer is… it all depends. Where are you living? What job are you doing?
A Microsoft engineer living in Seattle can mock God openlly and not face any negative repercussions. In his world, a Christian who opposes gay marriage will face far more opprobrium. Ask Brendan eich.
If you live and work in academia, atheism is the norm. Devout Christians are the ones treated as oddballs.
There are other places where an atheist might be well advised to clam up.
That’s okay for a normal person, but not for a presidential candidate. He or she would be expected to insert God in speeches every so often. I’ve seen people say that Obama, who was an atheist, became religious precisely when he got into politics. He might still be an atheist - it is impossible to know until he writes his post-Presidential memoirs.
Lip service to God as opposed to dedicated worship, would be fine for most, though, though better for Dems than Republicans.
Exactly.
This will only settle the question if he admits being an atheist. Which is unlikely for at least two major reasons.
Yeah, even if he’s an atheist (and I see no reason to think he is beyond wishful thinking on some people’s part) Obama wouldn’t admit it until long after he has no influence on the political landscape, or atheism becomes much more acceptable. I see a higher likelihood of him admitting being gay or reptilian (or both, perhaps a cloacasexual).
I believe it is common knowledge that he was an atheist before he hooked up with the church. Even if he still is he might not want to admit it for his legacy.
Marley23 - two major reasons? I hope we’re not talking another damn dynasty here!