And now, for the perfect Politics & Religion thread: Do you think that someone who actually admits to being an atheist will ever be elected President of the United States during our lifetime? I don't think so. This is one reason I take exception to religion. It seems that the "spiritual" among us are less tolerant of those who do not share a belief in a deity of one form or another, be it their own or someone else's. I also suspect that fewer elected officials actually believe in God than the number who claim to do so. And so, I think we are in the midst of a Holy Tyranny: You don't have to believe (or pretend to), unless you want to get elected. And to the extent that my characterization is remotely accurate, it smells of religious intolerance. I don't think it comes down to shared values and morals per se. Rather, I think it is a prejudice against those who do not "believe," simply for its own sake. I can say with confidence that, as an atheist, I would vote for whomever I would consider to be the best candidate irrespective of his or her religious convictions or lack of them. If you are a religious person, could you say the same, or could an atheist never qualify as the "best" candidate for you? Any thoughts?
no - but an agnostic could. Not because of prejudice but because of an atheist would be shown to lack the thinking skills to be president. (tougher test on all politicians post gwb the idiot. A believer by definition has faith. Something we know is beyond measurement. An agnostic says I can't measure it so I doubt its existence. An atheists has faith in his disbelief. yet pretends it is not faith. Without testing without knowing what happened before the big bang - an atheist states God could not have caused the big bang. That disconnect - that lack of rational thinking would cause the atheist to be unelectable.
Perhaps we are engaging in semantics here, but I firmly believe that an atheist and an agnostic are essentially one and the same for all practical purposes. In my mind, they both lives their lives in pretty much the same way, all else being equal. One just appears to be outwardly a bit more decisive. However, if God were to irrefutably present Himself to both the atheist and the agnostic, I believe that both would regard that revelation in much the same way. They would both need a similar amount of evidence and, if they were presented with such objective evidence, they would both accept it as their new interpretation of reality because what was previously a scientific lack of evidence would suddenly become a preponderance of evidence. However, until that time, let's not hold our breath or get too excited. As for your reference to the disconnect associated with a lack of rational thinking, well, you know what my assessment is of that. Finally, I suspect that not even an agnostic could get elected in our lifetime unless there is a major shift in belief. I think that the religious crowd views the world as more "us and them" than those who are not religious. Just my opinion, of course.
Suppose an atheist was elected President. Suppose he fell down and broke his crown, and constituents being what they are, sent him get well wishes and wrote "I will pray for you." How should our atheist President respond?
If he is a decent person, then I suspect he will say, "Thank you." It's the thought that counts. I'm an atheist and I think I'm a pretty decent guy. People have said on occasion in the past that they would pray for me for one reason or another. I said "Thank you." My conduct is a bit different here because we are engaging in discussion and debate rather than an exchange of pleasantries or sentiments. What's this a about a crown? I do hope you are referring to dental work. I have one of those, too. Vote for me.
Actually, I think Bush is a bad example. People should have the right to believe what they please as long as it is personal and it affects no one else in any way. However, God "told" Bush to go to war in Iraq. That's not so personal because it seems to have affected a few other participants aside from Bush and his God. Only a moron would rule on faith. A good leader relies on good judgment, irrespective of faith. However, I think that the problem with the deeply religious is that faith often seems to crowd out good judgment quite apart from any issues relating to ethics.