Happy Atheist Forum

I've wondered this for awhile, if we would ever see an atheist president in modern times. I know things like how Lincoln denied religion while growing up, and Jefferson questioned religion, but in modern times, with 24 hour news channels, internet, etc, knowing (most) everything about a candidate, could an atheist ever be President. I don't know how it is in other countries, but I found this article on abcnews.com that was discussing if a non christian would ever be present and I was shocked when I saw that people would vote for a muslim over an atheist. According to the poll, 61 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that was an atheist. It was 45% for muslim, 25% for a mormon, and 11% for a jew. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stained-glass-ceiling-false-obama-muslim-rumors-raise/story?id=11446420

This is very shocking to me. I would much rather have a president that does what is needed to fix a problem, instead of just hoping god will fix it. And I don't want a president who thinks that rapture or armageddon or whatever is coming in the near future, and that starting WWIII will speed the return of jesus. I would much rather someone who doesn't believe in fairy tales, who is logical and intelligent.

Maybe not in the near future, but 30-50 years out I think it will be possible. By that time we should have enough evidence to do away with any doubt about the non-existence of the sky-daddy.

In my personal experience I often end up voting for the 'least worst' party/candidate as I have never been inspired by politicians, except Winston Churchill and that may be through the rose tinted spectacles of history. So, will an atheist ever be US president? Possibly, but it would not be because they were an atheist it would be because they were not a theist. Imagine if you will Palin becomes the next President of the US and ends up completely fucking up, hopefully without causing WWIII. And she fucks up directly because she attempts to bring her theistic views to bear while in office. I would contend that the candidate who followed Palin could proclaim their atheism and secular credentials that, at the moment, be would political suicide and turn that vice into a virtue. An atheist will only get into the White House as a result of a theist fucking up big time.

I never thought I'd live to see a black man become president, and that happened.  I also never thought I'd see a woman come close to being president, either.

In short, anything is possible.

I give it one more generation.  The young folks are losing religion rapidly.

I think political parties play a percentages game.
There is usually only a few percentage points between candidates.
Most voters are firmly attached to one party or the other.
Atheism is an issue that will alienate some loyal voters.
If the atheist factor is likely to reduce your vote by more than 1-2% it doesn't seem viable.

But forever is long time, maybe one day Oprah will renounce god and run for the job.

Ah, but the percentages are changing.

I don't know, I haven't decided whether or not to run.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frageguy.com%2Fmedia%2F2010%2F07%2Ffuck-yea.png&hash=bc82ecd2f9bbc8db5a4e596d5bf35c2d8059b0a1)

Will the fuck yeah stick man be your campaign slogan?  I hope so.

Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."

But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part.

Rightie-o then.  

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be

Oh and FFS, Hitler was not elected.  He was appointed chancellor, you fuckwit.  Please actually learn something before you spew misinformation as fact.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."

But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part. :D

Of course it is highly likely that an atheist has been the president and nobody ever knew it. Politicians are not renowned for their honesty and are prone to desire power so it's not beyond the wit of man for a dishonest power crazed maniac to try to get to be the President rather than a Bishop and use a theistic cloak to do so.

I think it's actually very likely there was an atheist president at some point, but as you said Tank, he was silent about his true beliefs.

Australia's longest serving Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke was an atheist.
His government seemed to encourage people to be better.
Indigenous rights and helping the poor was a priority.
A subsequent theist conservative used race and self interest to gain votes.

And perhaps Bob's greatest achievement

QuoteHis academic achievements were complemented by setting a new world speed record for beer drinking: a yard glass (approximately 3 imperial pints or 1.7 litres) in eleven seconds.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."

But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part. :D

When that day comes, i'll be laughing at the knowledge Edward the Dick, i mean, theist, will be going mental.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I think political parties play a percentages game.
There is usually only a few percentage points between candidates.
Most voters are firmly attached to one party or the other.
Atheism is an issue that will alienate some loyal voters.
If the atheist factor is likely to reduce your vote by more than 1-2% it doesn't seem viable.

But forever is long time, maybe one day Oprah will renounce god and run for the job.

This makes sense to me (well, maybe not the Oprah part, there aren't any very famous black female atheists).  Given the great divide between the red and the blue that seems to be getting bigger, a worldview that turns off even a small percentage of the voters is likely to doom a candidate.  According to a poll done 3 years ago, only 45% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist candidate.  I don't believe a political breakdown is provided, but I think it safe to assume that there are significant numbers on both sides of the aisle.

http://positivethought.org/index.php/bl ... -president (http://positivethought.org/index.php/blog/2-religion/22-would-you-vote-for-an-atheist-for-president)

Btw, we still haven't elected a black president.  Mr. Obama is clearly biracial. His mother was white, and he was raised by white people.  If not for his half whiteness, he likely wouldn't have beaten out Ms. Clinton.  Atheism is an-all in proposition, one can't be half atheist.  Atheism will likely have to wait it's turn behind the race/gender/sexual orientation/religious breakthroughs to the presidency.  My guess: 200 years.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"This makes sense to me (well, maybe not the Oprah part, there aren't any very famous black female atheists).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

QuoteGiven the great divide between the red and the blue that seems to be getting bigger, a worldview that turns off even a small percentage of the voters is likely to doom a candidate.  According to a poll done 3 years ago, only 45% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist candidate.  I don't believe a political breakdown is provided, but I think it safe to assume that there are significant numbers on both sides of the aisle.

http://positivethought.org/index.php/bl ... -president (http://positivethought.org/index.php/blog/2-religion/22-would-you-vote-for-an-atheist-for-president)

I haven't found a breakdown of the ages of the recipients, but I would direct you to earlier iterations of the same poll.  The numbers show an unbroken trend towards more and more acceptance.  This indicates a generational mindset is at work in this poll, and in the nation at large, hopefully.

QuoteBtw, we still haven't elected a black president.  Mr. Obama is clearly biracial. His mother was white, and he was raised by white people.  If not for his half whiteness, he likely wouldn't have beaten out Ms. Clinton.

[Emphasis added]

This will forever remain in the realm of hypothesis.  That Obama has been called a "nigger", however, is a fact; and I would argue that that is the salient fact of his election -- that such bigotry has waned.  A significant point too is that a disproportionately large slice of President Obama's support came from youth, indicating that they are happy to discard the prejudices of their parents.

QuoteAtheism is an-all in proposition, one can't be half atheist.  Atheism will likely have to wait it's turn behind the race/gender/sexual orientation/religious breakthroughs to the presidency.  My guess: 200 years.

I'm not so sure about this first sentence.  Pure agnostics might argue with it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"This makes sense to me (well, maybe not the Oprah part, there aren't any very famous black female atheists).

Ayaan Hirsan Ali.

QuoteGiven the great divide between the red and the blue that seems to be getting bigger, a worldview that turns off even a small percentage of the voters is likely to doom a candidate.  According to a poll done 3 years ago, only 45% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist candidate.  I don't believe a political breakdown is provided, but I think it safe to assume that there are significant numbers on both sides of the aisle.

http://positivethought.org/index.php/bl ... -president (http://positivethought.org/index.php/blog/2-religion/22-would-you-vote-for-an-atheist-for-president)

I haven't found a breakdown of the ages of the recipients, but I would direct you to look at earlier iterations of the same poll.  The numbers show an unbroken trend towards more and more acceptance.  This indicates a generational mindset is at work in this poll, and in the nation at large, hopefully.

QuoteBtw, we still haven't elected a black president.  Mr. Obama is clearly biracial. His mother was white, and he was raised by white people.  If not for his half whiteness, he likely wouldn't have beaten out Ms. Clinton.

[Emphasis added]

This will forever remain in the realm of hypothesis.  The fact that Obama has been called a "nigger", however, is a fact; and I would argue that that is the salient fact of his election -- that such bigotry has waned.  A significant point too is that a disproportionately large slice of President Obama's support came from youth, indicating that they are happy to discard the prejudices of their parents.

QuoteAtheism is an-all in proposition, one can't be half atheist.  Atheism will likely have to wait it's turn behind the race/gender/sexual orientation/religious breakthroughs to the presidency.  My guess: 200 years.

I'm not so sure about this first sentence.  Pure agnostics might argue with it.

Not that she doesn't count, but Ali is likely not "very famous" to the US voting public.  

I recognize that we are trending in the right direction, acceptance of atheism is certainly on the rise.  

Obama has been called nigger.  That doesn't change the fact that he's half white and was raised by whites.  Hard core racists don't have a monopoly on bigotry.  It's been my experience that many people that wouldn't consider themselves "racists" hold significant racial biases.  I've worked with people who wouldn't consider themselves racist, would never use the word nigger, and worked very hard to get Obama elected.  Many of these same people shudder at the thought of having to deal with black people.  I'm a bartender at night and I witness the look of horror when my waiter coworkers have to serve black patrons.  I watch them try to pass the tables off to others.  I watch them in their social circles, very few of their friends are black, and the ones who are "act white".   Not to offend you, but if you think that Mr. Obama would have won the election if he was a dark skinned big lipped brother who spoke with a more stereotypically "black" pitch we just have to agree to disagree.

Pure agnostics might disagree with my all or nothing sentiment.  Respectfully, what one claims to be, and what one is aren't always identical imo.  The answer to the question "do you believe in god?' is yes or no.  One can go back and forth between.  One day I believe, the next I don't.  However, if you say "I don't know" or "I have no opinion", ostensibly, your answer is "no".   If you have no opinion, or don't think of such things, you also aren't praying and doing things in the name of the lord.  Pure agnostics follow the evidence.  The evidence doesn't lead to god imo.  It certainly doesn't lead to allah or yahweh.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"This makes sense to me (well, maybe not the Oprah part, there aren't any very famous black female atheists).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

We have to find someone popular who will overcome the atheist factor that's why I mentioned Oprah.
They do have to be born in the USA as far as I know.
Originally I was thinking along the lines of some hero, perhaps a scientist who leads a team that cures some cancer.
But I know doctors do the work and god gets the credit.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"but if you think that Mr. Obama would have won the election if he was a dark skinned big lipped brother who spoke with a more stereotypically "black" pitch we just have to agree to disagree.

Well I still feel good about Obama being elected and I encourage you to feel good about it.
I hope someone who looked and sounded like Martin Luther King could be elected.
What worries me more is how a moron like George W was elected twice and Sarah Palin could ever be considered.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"This makes sense to me (well, maybe not the Oprah part, there aren't any very famous black female atheists).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

We have to find someone popular who will overcome the atheist factor that's why I mentioned Oprah.
They do have to be born in the USA as far as I know.
Originally I was thinking along the lines of some hero, perhaps a scientist who leads a team that cures some cancer.
But I know doctors do the work and god gets the credit.

Lance Armstrong?  He's an atheist, and those little yellow wristbands have raised a lot of money for cancer research.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Lance Armstrong?  He's an atheist, and those little yellow wristbands have raised a lot of money for cancer research.

I ride a bike sometimes and I know car drivers hate bike riders.
I've seen the talk in forums.
I don't think America is ready for a bike riding president.
Not unless he shoots mooses, and attacks some minority group.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Not that she doesn't count, but Ali is likely not "very famous" to the US voting public.  

I wasn't positing her as  a Presidential candidate, but as a famous black female atheist.  There is at least one, though MP's point about her relative general obscurity is certainly fair.

QuoteObama has been called nigger.  That doesn't change the fact that he's half white and was raised by whites.  Hard core racists don't have a monopoly on bigotry.  It's been my experience that many people that wouldn't consider themselves "racists" hold significant racial biases.

Certainly.  But his election is yet a further erosion of the nonsense that we Americans still have to deal with, in the 21st century.  

QuoteI've worked with people who wouldn't consider themselves racist, would never use the word nigger, and worked very hard to get Obama elected.  Many of these same people shudder at the thought of having to deal with black people.  I'm a bartender at night and I witness the look of horror when my waiter coworkers have to serve black patrons.  I watch them try to pass the tables off to others.  I watch them in their social circles, very few of their friends are black, and the ones who are "act white".

I'm unsure of the relevance of this passage.

QuoteNot to offend you, but if you think that Mr. Obama would have won the election if he was a dark skinned big lipped brother who spoke with a more stereotypically "black" pitch we just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to be confuting genetic and cultural expressions.  If he were dark-skinned but just as eloquent, I don't doubt that he'd still have stood an honest chance.

QuoteThe answer to the question "do you believe in god?' is yes or no.  One can go back and forth between.  One day I believe, the next I don't.  However, if you say "I don't know" or "I have no opinion", ostensibly, your answer is "no".

Not necessarily.  A pure agnostic, one who says "we cannot know," can still be a theist -- a believer-- or an atheist.  Knowledge and belief are two different things.  Also, RE your examples, "I don't know" is agnostic, and "I have no opinion" would seem to be apatheist.

QuoteIf you have no opinion, or don't think of such things, you also aren't praying and doing things in the name of the lord.  Pure agnostics follow the evidence.  The evidence doesn't lead to god imo.  It certainly doesn't lead to allah or yahweh.

[Emphasis added]

No.  Pure agnostics argue that evidence is irrelevant because there is no way for us to know at all whether or not any god(s) exist.  They can still believe deeply in god, as did my Jesuit-trained Phi101 prof.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"but if you think that Mr. Obama would have won the election if he was a dark skinned big lipped brother who spoke with a more stereotypically "black" pitch we just have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Well I still feel good about Obama being elected and I encourage you to feel good about it.
I hope someone who looked and sounded like Martin Luther King could be elected.
What worries me more is how a moron like George W was elected twice and Sarah Palin could ever be considered.

It certainly gives me more faith in the US public that Obama got elected.  I just don't interpret it as a decline in racism.

I too would hope somebody like King could be elected, just not likely in my view as long as whites are in the majority.

The fact that W got into office and Palin came anywhere close points to how far we have to go.  A reasonable man Gore couldn't overcome the stupidity of the American public even after 8 years of relative prosperity with Clinton at the helm.  Kerry did even worse after 4 years of W's demonstrable idiocy.

It took Obama, a transcendent voice of a generation, to eek out victory against a relic (McCain) and a moron (Palin).  I fear we'll find that Obama is an outlier, not an indication of a trend.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."
But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part.

So why are you using Hitler as a bad guy - he was Christian?  Aren't you hurting "your atheism is evil" platform by using nasty Christians as an example?

Playing with the No True Scotsman fallacy again with your quotation marks?

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

Why would the majority have to be atheist?  All it would take would be a majority that is not bigoted against atheists.  Australia isn't mostly atheists.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part.

You're going to help destroy civilization?  Is it because you are hoping for the Rapture or some silly thing like that?

Or do you mean you are going to try to wipe out atheism by promoting a God (Yahweh) to worship by pointing out the benefits of not burning in Hell and the ability to act outside the laws of man and outside the social contract?  Is it because it's such an injustice that the Bible is mostly not followed anymore.  Do you miss the stonings and the ability to rape a pretty girl so you can marry her?  Or is it slaves you want and without the Bible to endorse slavery you don't know how you'll manage it?  Are you afraid you won't find anywhere in the world it's legal to murder a homosexual or rape a lesbian if the world turns completely away from your God?  Afraid you won't be able to enjoy the vicarious thrill of seeing millions die from AIDS in Africa?   Are you concerned that world population will stabilize to a sustainable level due to the spread of (gasp!) comprehensive science-based sex education if the Bible can no longer convince people to breed like flies?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"It certainly gives me more faith in the US public that Obama got elected.  I just don't interpret it as a decline in racism.

I too would hope somebody like King could be elected, just not likely in my view as long as whites are in the majority.

White people have done good things.
Some white people said to other white people slavery is wrong and slavery was ended, eventually.
I'm not aware of any society that did that before.
I think white people are getting better, not all at uniform rate it's true.
White people supported the civil rights movement.
Sam Cook heard Dylan's Blowin' In The Wind and wondered why a black person hadn't created it.
White and not so white people have convinced white people to do better.
I think we're getting there.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Not that she doesn't count, but Ali is likely not "very famous" to the US voting public.  

I wasn't positing her as  a Presidential candidate, but as a famous black female atheist.  There is at least one, though MP's point about her relative general obscurity is certainly fair.

QuoteObama has been called nigger.  That doesn't change the fact that he's half white and was raised by whites.  Hard core racists don't have a monopoly on bigotry.  It's been my experience that many people that wouldn't consider themselves "racists" hold significant racial biases.

Certainly.  But his election is yet a further erosion of the nonsense that we Americans still have to deal with, in the 21st century.  

QuoteI've worked with people who wouldn't consider themselves racist, would never use the word nigger, and worked very hard to get Obama elected.  Many of these same people shudder at the thought of having to deal with black people.  I'm a bartender at night and I witness the look of horror when my waiter coworkers have to serve black patrons.  I watch them try to pass the tables off to others.  I watch them in their social circles, very few of their friends are black, and the ones who are "act white".

I'm unsure of the relevance of this passage.

QuoteNot to offend you, but if you think that Mr. Obama would have won the election if he was a dark skinned big lipped brother who spoke with a more stereotypically "black" pitch we just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to be confuting genetic and cultural expressions.  If he were dark-skinned but just as eloquent, I don't doubt that he'd still have stood an honest chance.

QuoteThe answer to the question "do you believe in god?' is yes or no.  One can go back and forth between.  One day I believe, the next I don't.  However, if you say "I don't know" or "I have no opinion", ostensibly, your answer is "no".

Not necessarily.  A pure agnostic, one who says "we cannot know," can still be a theist -- a believer-- or an atheist.  Knowledge and belief are two different things.  Also, RE your examples, "I don't know" is agnostic, and "I have no opinion" would seem to be apatheist.

QuoteIf you have no opinion, or don't think of such things, you also aren't praying and doing things in the name of the lord.  Pure agnostics follow the evidence.  The evidence doesn't lead to god imo.  It certainly doesn't lead to allah or yahweh.

[Emphasis added]

No.  Pure agnostics argue that evidence is irrelevant because there is no way for us to know at all whether or not any god(s) exist.  They can still believe deeply in god, as did my Jesuit-trained Phi101 prof.

In order:

My mentioning US voters assumed too much.  We agree that she is not "very famous".  Not even in the same league as Whoopi or Beyonce...let alone Oprah.

I agree that Obama getting elected means something, I'm just not sure what that is yet.  I'll be more inclined to agree with you when Obama gets a second term.  

The relevance is that racists worked to get Obama elected.  Their support of Obama was not a product of them shunning the racist views of their elders.  In my opinion they supported Obama  because they didn't consider him to be black and/or he was simply a better choice than the alternatives.  If there was an equally engaging white candidate, they likely would have supported her.

I'm not confusing anything, they are intertwined.  If he was raised in a black household, and had two black parents, his physical appearance and his speech would likely be different.  As you stated, there is no way to prove our respective hypotheses.  I strongly disagree with you, I guess I have to leave it at that.

Ours is a problem of semantics.  I use Huxley's definition of the word.  His is about following evidence and not making assumptions not proven.  He coined the term in 1869.  We can split hairs if you like.  Agnostic as you and many others define it, is utterly meaningless.  Nobody has definitive proof of god's existence or non-existence.  I can claim to have it, sure, but that claim is, just like, my opinion man (sorry, just watched Lebowski).  All that really matters is what you believe.  If you believe, you are a theist, if you don't, you are an atheist.  

I don't view god as an idea.  God is an entity that does or does not exist.  There is no middle ground to its existence.  One's opinion about what can or can't be proven is an entirely different matter.   It doesn't make someone less of a theist if they concede that they can't prove their god.  It doesn't make someone less of an atheist if they concede that they can't prove non-existence.  It just makes them honest.

Oh, and to answer the question of whether or not an atheist could be elected as President of the US - I don't think it could happen any time soon.  I think that while we didn't tip to theocracy at the last presidential election (I'd bet this board would be illegal within a few years if McCain/Palin had made it to the White House) I think it's still a very real danger.  

There are more vocal religious extremists in this country now than in any other time in my life.  If it tips that way further, we may never have a non-Christian president unless it swings back.  Some of the population is barely able avoid revolution because the Christian president is half African.  

But if the pendulum doesn't fall on the side of theocracy with the next presidential election, I think we might be capable of having an atheist in the White House within the next 25-50 years.

It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"It certainly gives me more faith in the US public that Obama got elected.  I just don't interpret it as a decline in racism.

I too would hope somebody like King could be elected, just not likely in my view as long as whites are in the majority.

White people have done good things.
Some white people said to other white people slavery is wrong and slavery was ended, eventually.
I'm not aware of any society that did that before.
I think white people are getting better, not all at uniform rate it's true.
White people supported the civil rights movement.
Sam Cook heard Dylan's Blowin' In The Wind and wondered why a black person hadn't created it.
White and not so white people have convinced white people to do better.
I think we're getting there.

All great points. I don't think that racists are necessarily bad people, and they are certainly capable of doing good things. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.  It could be argued he raped them as well. Nonetheless, I consider him a great man, a great president, and one of the people directly responsible for the freedoms I enjoy today.

It's a two way street.  I don't think the onus is on whites to get better in terms of race relations.  I think that the onus is on all of us to be more open minded.  In the US, I've seen more examples of blacks being racist against whites than the other way around.  Whites just happen to have more power.

Quote from: "Cecilie"It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not.

It shouldn't be surprising.

Quote from: "Cecilie"I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

That is a major difference.

Quote from: "none123"I've wondered this for awhile, if we would ever see an atheist president in modern times.

Hello,

I think there is a suggestive analogy for the wait time we have before us, in order to see an atheist US president.

Consider the question of health care reform. Germany enacted its first healthcare legislation in 1883, the UK in 1946, Australia in 1973, Canada in 1984, and (finally) the USA in 2010. So, if this is analogous with the possibility of an (openly) atheist US president, it is clear that the US is far behind the curve, but the reality of an atheist in the White House may not be so far in the future as some of us might suppose.

One of the largest impediments to an atheistic US presidential candidate would be the huge numbers of conservative Christian voters in the "red" states. Improved education (as in, no religious interference in the classroom), and the decline of religious observance in these states (younger generations of non-religious voters) would remove this obstacle. There are signs of this already brewing, as I have spoken with many young Americans (under 18) who are very concerned about the USA's "behind the curve" status, and no few of these have openly told me they attribute this to a "stupid religious good ole' boys mentality", as one young man put it.

I think we are likely to see an exponential growth in atheism in the USA in the next few decades, and very likely a corresponding growth of atheistic candidates. Presidential candidates, as always, will appeal to the sentiments and desires of the voters they wish to win over. I must admit, for me, it would be a very entertaining turning of the tables to see an openly atheistic candidate publicly denounce the religious candidates for clinging to Bronze Age myths and desert dogma as the "magnetism" of their moral compass, rather than availing themselves of all the advances we have made in the intervening millenia, and thus being a recognizably 21st century candidate.

On that day, folks, the drinks are on me!

Quote from: "Kylyssa"(I'd bet this board would be illegal within a few years if McCain/Palin had made it to the White House)

We could then get it a nice server in Europe to run from

Quote from: "humblesmurph"In order:

My mentioning US voters assumed too much.  We agree that she is not "very famous".  Not even in the same league as Whoopi or Beyonce...let alone Oprah.

Hmm, didn't know Whoopi was a theist.  But yeah.

QuoteI agree that Obama getting elected means something, I'm just not sure what that is yet.  I'll be more inclined to agree with you when Obama gets a second term.  

This first election is far more the important one, for it has established that it can be done.  Like the four-minute-mile, once Bannister broke the "wall", the record was pushed steadily beyond he had done.  Once it is known that something can be done, it will happen more often.

QuoteThe relevance is that racists worked to get Obama elected.  Their support of Obama was not a product of them shunning the racist views of their elders.

Please support this section with cites.  

QuoteIn my opinion they supported Obama  because they didn't consider him to be black and/or he was simply a better choice than the alternatives.  If there was an equally engaging white candidate, they likely would have supported her.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide the basis for this opinion?

QuoteI'm not confusing anything, they are intertwined.

No, they're not.  I know many blacks who grew up in a black household with two black parents who do not have a "stereotypically black" pattern of speech.  If you think they're intertwined, explain why black people from Jamaica have different accents that blacks from Mali or Harlem or the East End of London.  Here, I'll do it for you:  They aren't intertwined.  Speech patterns are cultural, and not genetic.  

QuoteIf he was raised in a black household, and had two black parents, his physical appearance and his speech would likely be different.  As you stated, there is no way to prove our respective hypotheses.  I strongly disagree with you, I guess I have to leave it at that.

Actually, there is a way to give evidence to my hypothesis:  Go back to the Gallup/USA Today poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-to-vote-mormon-72year-old-presidential-candidates.aspx#2), and look at the previous years that the same questions were asked (second page).  The trendline shows an unbroken increase in a willingness to vote for a black candidate over the last 40 years, from 53% in 1967 to 94% in 2007.

As time moves forward, we are becoming more tolerant.

QuoteOurs is a problem of semantics.  I use Huxley's definition of the word.  His is about following evidence and not making assumptions not proven.  He coined the term in 1869.  We can split hairs if you like.  Agnostic as you and many others define it, is utterly meaningless.

The first sense listed in this definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic) is the formal sense of the word.  The second sense is the colloquial.  It is quite clear that this word has meaning, and no amount of calling "semantics" changes that.

QuoteNobody has definitive proof of god's existence or non-existence.  I can claim to have it, sure, but that claim is, just like, my opinion man (sorry, just watched Lebowski).  All that really matters is what you believe.  If you believe, you are a theist, if you don't, you are an atheist.  

There you go.  

QuoteI don't view god as an idea.  God is an entity that does or does not exist.  There is no middle ground to its existence.  One's opinion about what can or can't be proven is an entirely different matter.  It doesn't make someone less of a theist if they concede that they can't prove their god.  It doesn't make someone less of an atheist if they concede that they can't prove non-existence.  It just makes them honest.

Indeed, we agree here.  However, I fail to see how this renders agnosticism meaningless.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"In order:

My mentioning US voters assumed too much.  We agree that she is not "very famous".  Not even in the same league as Whoopi or Beyonce...let alone Oprah.

Hmm, didn't know Whoopi was a theist.  But yeah.

QuoteI agree that Obama getting elected means something, I'm just not sure what that is yet.  I'll be more inclined to agree with you when Obama gets a second term.  

This first election is far more the important one, for it has established that it can be done.  Like the four-minute-mile, once Bannister broke the "wall", the record was pushed steadily beyond he had done.  Once it is known that something can be done, it will happen more often.

QuoteThe relevance is that racists worked to get Obama elected.  Their support of Obama was not a product of them shunning the racist views of their elders.

Please support this section with cites.  

QuoteIn my opinion they supported Obama  because they didn't consider him to be black and/or he was simply a better choice than the alternatives.  If there was an equally engaging white candidate, they likely would have supported her.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide the basis for this opinion?

QuoteI'm not confusing anything, they are intertwined.

No, they're not.  I know many blacks who grew up in a black household with two black parents who do not have a "stereotypically black" pattern of speech.  If you think they're intertwined, explain why black people from Jamaica have different accents that blacks from Mali or Harlem or the East End of London.  Here, I'll do it for you:  They aren't intertwined.  Speech patterns are cultural, and not genetic.  

QuoteIf he was raised in a black household, and had two black parents, his physical appearance and his speech would likely be different.  As you stated, there is no way to prove our respective hypotheses.  I strongly disagree with you, I guess I have to leave it at that.

Actually, there is a way to give evidence to my hypothesis:  Go back to the Gallup/USA Today poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-to-vote-mormon-72year-old-presidential-candidates.aspx#2), and look at the previous years that the same questions were asked (second page).  The trendline shows an unbroken increase in a willingness to vote for a black candidate over the last 40 years, from 53% in 1967 to 94% in 2007.

As time moves forward, we are becoming more tolerant.

QuoteOurs is a problem of semantics.  I use Huxley's definition of the word.  His is about following evidence and not making assumptions not proven.  He coined the term in 1869.  We can split hairs if you like.  Agnostic as you and many others define it, is utterly meaningless.

The first sense listed in this definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic) is the formal sense of the word.  The second sense is the colloquial.  It is quite clear that this word has meaning, and no amount of calling "semantics" changes that.

QuoteNobody has definitive proof of god's existence or non-existence.  I can claim to have it, sure, but that claim is, just like, my opinion man (sorry, just watched Lebowski).  All that really matters is what you believe.  If you believe, you are a theist, if you don't, you are an atheist.  

There you go.  

QuoteI don't view god as an idea.  God is an entity that does or does not exist.  There is no middle ground to its existence.  One's opinion about what can or can't be proven is an entirely different matter.  It doesn't make someone less of a theist if they concede that they can't prove their god.  It doesn't make someone less of an atheist if they concede that they can't prove non-existence.  It just makes them honest.

Indeed, we agree here.  However, I fail to see how this renders agnosticism meaningless.

I don't know what Whoopi is.  I suspect she is atheist.  I haven't heard her say it yet.

Maybe you are right.  I admire your optimism even though I don't share it.

The support is above.  I work with a group of young people (24-30ish) who volunteered for to work for the Obama campaign and many of them display clear racial bias against blacks.  This is purely anecdotal.  The point is simply that one can both support Obama and hold a negative view of blacks in general.  

When I'm referring to "they" I mean my coworkers.  I didn't ask any of them why they supported Obama, my statement was pure speculation based on the obvious racial bias I noticed while working with them.  Labeling black patrons as "ghetto" before they even spoke to them.  Trying to get out of having to serve black patrons.  Failing to extend simple courtesies to black patrons that they freely extend to white ones (one coworker yelled at me for giving a black patron a glass of water).  I could go on if you wish.

Race and culture are intertwined.  You think so too. We are talking in circles.  I said Obama "likely" would speak different.  I know people who have two black parents who talk "white" too.  They are the exception not the rule.  For better or worse, blacks are generally socialized by their black parents to speak differently from whites in the US.  Black culture is an entity in the US.  Other countries have no bearing in this argument, but I'd bet in London or Jamaica blacks and whites generally sound somewhat different from each other as well.

Getting back to the point.  The thread is about whether an atheist could be elected president.  I said something like "atheism is an all or nothing proposition".  You are either a theist or atheist, there is no third option.  You offered agnostic as a third option, I reject this.  Saying you are agnostic in your sense of the word says nothing about theism or atheism, just an opinion about what can be known. Do you believe in god? only has two answers, yes or no.

Light/dark          happy/sad            cold/hot             atheism/theism                       agnostic/??????
What is a descriptive term without an opposite?  Meaningless.  Without the dark, we know not of the light.  I know gnostic, a much older term, is the opposite of the word agnostic, but the meanings don't match up thusly.  If you can find me some info on gnosticism as the direct opposite of agnosticism, I'll gladly retract my claim that  the term "agnostic" is meaningless and thank you for the education.

Quote from: "karadan"When that day comes, i'll be laughing at the knowledge Edward the Dick, i mean, theist, will be going mental.

Karadan,

Please avoid personal insults; while Edward certainly has thrown around his fair share of insults (and has gotten reprimanded for doing so) it isn't exactly fair if I let everyone else insult him without saying something when I see it.

Quote from: "Cecilie"It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

I think this is really important to this discussion.

Why would anyone care? But it seems that they do. And it really has nothing to do with good old American tradition. This stuff is almost primal, man.

Right now I'm thinking, "Would I vote for a Muslim? Well, would I?"

Really, I can't see any reason why I shouldn't. But then I consider this to be a nation of laws and not one of religious dogma. Silly me.

Quote from: "Cecilie"It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

I care if it's possible or not.  Heck, some people have a very, very weak suspicion that Obama might not be a Christian and it's an issue.  If we were in a country where no one cared what religion the president was we wouldn't care if an atheist were ever elected.  I just care whether or not an atheist could be elected president.  

Right now, no matter how qualified, an openly atheist person could not be elected president of the US.  I think we have approximately the same possibility of an atheist getting elected as president right now as we stood of getting a non-white president in the White House in the 1960s.  I don't care, really, if we never get an atheist in the White House so long as it could happen.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."

But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part. :shake:

Quote from: "Edward the Troll"Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."

But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpix.motivatedphotos.com%2F2009%2F12%2F5%2F633956211400551745-ObviousTrollisobvious.jpg&hash=07fa346037ff60caf0cf99e68a8b1c2c40322e84)

Seriously, I don't think there's any doubt now that you didn't come here for a civil discussion, but only to spit out whacky preachy insults.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Getting back to the point.  The thread is about whether an atheist could be elected president.  I said something like "atheism is an all or nothing proposition".  You are either a theist or atheist, there is no third option.  You offered agnostic as a third option, I reject this.  Saying you are agnostic in your sense of the word says nothing about theism or atheism, just an opinion about what can be known. Do you believe in god? only has two answers, yes or no.

Again, you're making a category error.  "Gnosis" is the root for knowledge, not belief.  The two are different things:  

A gnostic "knows" there is a god.
A colloquial agnostic doesn't "know" one way or the other whether there is a god, or not, but awaits evidence.
A formal agnostic holds that humans cannot know whether or not god exists, either because evidence is not and will not be forthcoming, or because a finite mind cannot get a grip on an infinite entity.

A theist believes that god exists.
An atheist does not.

An apatheist regards the entire question as irrelevant.

One can be, colloquially, an agnostic, yet still believe in god(s), in the same way that one can say, "I think my Uncle Alfred is alive" even though one has not seen him in fourteen years, and therefore cannot know.

Quote from: "Cecilie"It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

Hey, catch a sodomy conviction because of laws based on religious stricture.  Might make you think about it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Getting back to the point.  The thread is about whether an atheist could be elected president.  I said something like "atheism is an all or nothing proposition".  You are either a theist or atheist, there is no third option.  You offered agnostic as a third option, I reject this.  Saying you are agnostic in your sense of the word says nothing about theism or atheism, just an opinion about what can be known. Do you believe in god? only has two answers, yes or no.

Again, you're making a category error.  "Gnosis" is the root for knowledge, not belief.  The two are different things:  

A gnostic "knows" there is a god.
A colloquial agnostic doesn't "know" one way or the other whether there is a god, or not, but awaits evidence.
A formal agnostic holds that humans cannot know whether or not god exists, either because evidence is not and will not be forthcoming, or because a finite mind cannot get a grip on an infinite entity.

A theist believes that god exists.
An atheist does not.

An apatheist regards the entire question as irrelevant.

One can be, colloquially, an agnostic, yet still believe in god(s), in the same way that one can say, "I think my Uncle Alfred is alive" even though one has not seen him in fourteen years, and therefore cannot know.

humble-Atheism is an-all in proposition, one can't be half atheist. Atheism will likely have to wait it's turn behind the race/gender/sexual orientation/religious breakthroughs to the presidency. My guess: 200 years.

Thump-I'm not so sure about this first sentence. Pure agnostics might argue with it.

This is where you brought agnostics into the discussion.  Peep the underlined. I'm talking about belief when I reference atheism.  You are talking about knowledge in suggesting that agnostics may disagree.  If I'm not mistaken, you are the one who made a category error.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Thump-I'm not so sure about this first sentence. Pure agnostics might argue with it.

This is where you brought agnostics into the discussion.  Peep the underlined. I'm talking about belief when I reference atheism.  You are talking about knowledge in suggesting that agnostics may disagree.  If I'm not mistaken, you are the one who made a category error.

Fair enough, I'll sit down.

I'd vote for an athiest... Provided he or she was a green party cantidate.

What I'd like to see in the white house is a Germanic Pagan, them heathens sure know how to party!  

If there hasn't been yet, or is not now <Am I the only one that would be gobsmacked if Obama wasn't an Atheist?>, there will be soon.