Maybe, technically… although I’d suggest that you’re having to apply err… “enhanced semantic techniques” to get that word to fit. 
Only 15% think religion and science mutually exclusive: http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=16200&SnID=518811652
I’m not the person who came up with such an extreme definition of the word; I’m just pointing out how badly flawed it is.
Well, that just means that 75% are either dishonest or in error. When science shows one thing and religion says another, then either you have to reject religion for science, or you aren’t doing science anymore.
Okay, first off, there’s a massive gulf between making angry comments on the internet and actually denying people human rights, and you are conflating the two.
Secondly, I’d like to argue that there are 20 nice atheists for every RR or Locrain, and I’d like to argue that most of the latter are blowing smoke more than anything. I’d like to, but the rest of the posts in this thread are making it difficult. :cringe:
I don’t know. My only real exposure to such vocal atheism has been on this board. Do any of the self-proclaimed atheists here admit there may exist a God, even though they hold zero belief?
To me, what you described sounds more like the brand of agnosticism I subscribe to.
What do you mean by “God”? What exactly is it that you would want me to admit the existence of?
So, it’s impossible to be religious and be a scientist, then?
IME, most people (and posters on this board) that self identify as atheists believe that the existence of God or gods is possible but call themselves atheists because they are without belief in the existence of any. If you’re not a theist (one that does have a belief in the existence of at least one god), then you’re an atheist. Atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
I think one of the reasons that polls underestimate how many of us there are that have no belief in the existence of God or gods is because a lot of us don’t accept that “atheist” fits that definition.
It’s sort of like someone being a policeman and a bank-robber. He can go from being one to being another, and back, as many times as he likes, but it’s darned difficult to be both at once!
Apparently, no one watches Dexter!
I don’t want you to admit anything, other than is it understood and accepted among atheists to admit to themselves the possibility of a Deity/intelligent First Cause (of any brand), despite zero belief, evidence or faith – as per x-ray visions proposal.
This guy might disagree with you. 
No, it means they have to avoiding entering areas of study that touch on their religion and to compartmentalize; something people are unfortunately very good at. You certainly can’t “integrate” science and religion like the article was talking about; the two mix about as well as sulfuric acid and spaghetti.
Really this is like hearing people talk about “integrating” science and politics; what a line like that always means in the real world is perverting science into pseudoscience to serve politics or religion or business.
That’s a bit more descriptive. The best I can say is I don’t even know if it is possible for such a thing to be. What have you got that would make me want to consider it as a possibility? Do we have solid evidence concerning the start of the universe, and do we have evidence that the being you propose exists in the first place? You are asking me to consider the realities of possibilities, while only giving me flights of fancy as factors in my decisions. I would say that you are putting the cart before the horse, but your cart hasn’t even been designed yet, and your horse hasn’t been born.
Belief is a word that’s a sticking point for me here.
I could imagine a God that could be defined as an entity that is comprised out of the entire universe itself, and emerges holistically out of this. He would fit the ideas of omniscient and omnipresent as time and space are is something he/it could roam freely around in, or even see all at once. Perhaps intelligence, consciousness and self-awareness are all anomalies of this aspect of space time in which every living thing happens to be a part of, and upon death, we will rejoin in this eternal entity, perhaps to someday rise from it again.*
Do I “believe” this. No, I wouldnt say that at all. Yet, since we have no idea how far the rabbit hole goes when it comes to the bizarre nature of the cosmos, and probably never will, who’s to say?
Why would an intelligence outside of (or possibly actually being) our universe be any more crazy than one (or just 7 billion plus, now) inside?
*And no, no drugs or any other mind altering substances were involved in the formation of this post. Shit, it’s not even original.
I have nothing more than the philosophical consideration and rhetoric that has been rolled around for eons.
Come back to me when you have actual possibilities, and we’ll talk.
For President, Senator, Representative, Governor, Attorney General, or any other position of power.
In these debates, a lot of people seem to assume that beliefs cannot have any effect on what a person will do once in office, or at least a relatively minor effect. To me the more obvious question is, what other than beliefs could effect someone’s readiness for a political position?
Obviously education and experience play a role, but generally most folks who are seriously in the running will have adequate education and experience. Rejecting a candidate because of their skin color, height, nose shape, age, preferred type of beer and so forth actually would be bigotry. Judging a candidate by verbal gaffes or memory slips is silly.
Any reasonable voter would, of course, want to know where a candidate stands on the major issues that they’ll have to deal with once in office. However, one can’t know what all those issues are. No one in 2000 knew that the upcoming presidential administration would center around reacting to a major terrorist attack, and we don’t know now what the winner in 2012 will have to deal with.
So the only reasonable position is to ask what the various candidates believe in. If there happens to be a candidate who’s a Mormon, it would be worth knowing how he feels about the LDS Church’s decision to ban blacks from the priesthood until 1978, and the Church’s teaching to this day that it was correct to do so. If he accepts the ban, that is one datum we can use to judge him. If he rejects it, that also tells us something about him.
Lumping a group of people together and hating them because of a perceived collective attribute is bigotry, yes. There were probably many Nazis who got caught up in the movement who were not on their own evil people.
Hate people (not groups) for what they do, not what they think or believe. You can hate Nazism or Catholicism or Communism but if you hate all Nazis or Catholics or Communists because they carry that label, you’re a bigot.
First, your position validates bigotry by making it rational. You’re creating a category of bigots who are in the right with your hugely over-broad use of the term. And second, you are conflating two entirely separate things; condemning a group of people for what they believe obviously does not include people who are for whatever reason forced or fooled into the group but don’t actually believe or know what they are supporting. Although in the real world I doubt that happens very often, however popular it may be as an after the fact excuse.
As for your “hate people for what they do” idea; Hitler was an evil man before he had a single person killed. That’s why he started killing them, after all. And he’d have still been evil even if circumstances had never put him in a position to instigate the Holocaust.