It’s not possible to know.
Not true at all. Atheism fits the facts, violates no physical laws, and is logically consistent; unlike religion. And “agnosticism” is just sucking up to religion by giving it a special intellectual status, judging it by standards we don’t use elsewhere in order to avoid saying “no, it isn’t true”. People aren’t “agnostic” about goblins or unicorns, despite those being far more plausible than any religion.
Not true.
Agnosticism is a position on what is knowable. It doesn’t state your beliefs. You could be an agnostic theist.
Also, are you agnostic about vampires? Because you don’t really know that vampires don’t exist. If you claim vampires don’t exist you’re being as stupid as someone who believes in vampires.
Can’t you see how utterly lame that position is?
I think there is a subset of people in both the religious and atheist groups that want to believe they have a handle on the whole thing, that there’s a beginning and end to knowledge/life/existence, that they know what it is, and they can be quite attached to their belief that ‘if it’s not in my book, it doesn’t exist.’ One has a religous book, and one has a science book, but they both get equally emotional, defensive and rhetorical with people that don’t see things their way, and have more in common with each other than they’d care to admit. Just because I think the atheists have the better book in general, doesn’t mean I have to trust the judgement of this subset in particular. YMMV.
I was mostly talking about the dancing, singing and talking in tongues.
I think the better question is would atheists vote for a Mormon?
Why not? Atheists are pretty much stuck with voting for a religious person. Mormonism is baseless, stupid and destructive all right - just like every other religion. I see little to choose from between them.
Those rattlers would shed worse than cats, though.
This is what I was talking about upthread, there isn’t a religion I want my POTUS to belong to, I just want them to be a politically expedient member, not hard core believer.
How serious a Mormon, and what are the other choices?
Not a better question, btw-just an attempt to divert attention away from the issue at hand. If you actually thought it was a better question, you would have started a new thread about it.
Bumped.
There’s an atheist now running for Congress in Arizona: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/31/opinion/moreno-atheists-unelectable-congress/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Every side is convinced they’re at a disadvantage.
Atheists are no exception.
This doesn’t address the question of whether such disadvantage actually exists. Everybody also thinks they’re right, and the other guy is wrong. However, in the final analysis, some of them are right, and some of their opponents are wrong.
I think it’s undeniable that atheists are at a disadvantage in elections. So are blacks, women, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, the very poor, the physically unprepossessing, and people with names that are hard to spell. A guy might have all the other advantages, but, being named Litomyšl, he’s going to have trouble at the polls.
The evidence shows that this is the most ignorant false equivalence fallacy made in these message board.
What a slick response. Do you think atheists are incorrect in that assumption, or not?
Good news As a whole, atheists score lower than any of the other groups that don’t fall into the straight-white-protestant male category. Based on that survey, I’m guessing that a black gay female atheist is fucked.
Maybe if she were left-handed…?
I feel like it can be a bit misleading to ask “would you vote for an atheist for president”. In my case, while I’d be perfectly willing to do the deed in theory, the chances of me finding an atheist politician who agreed with me on critical moral questions strikes me as rather abysmally low.
What critical moral questions do you think you and an atheist politician might disagree on?