@KaptinKool, but why should it be an issue? I vote for Christians all the time... Of course I don't have much choice... there is only one Congressman that admits publicly to being a non-believer. But anyway, so long as they don't say they want to remake America into their vision of a Christian Nation I'm okay with it (e.g. Pat Robertson). Why wouldn't a Christian vote for an atheist - so long as the atheist isn't some kind of militant or communist? To me it feels like bigotry. (Some of the reactions I get when people find out I'm an atheist support the idea that it's a significant problem for many). Godless is how we're seen - which for many translates (incorrectly) directly into amoral and even evil. ...which we are neither (not any more than the general populace). Indeed, apparently there is a lower percentage of atheists for their population size in prison than Christians and Muslims. Interestingly enough, Buddhists also have a very low prison population rate in the U.S.

@dexter morgan - I agree that it shouldn't be an issue.

Crazy Anglican - I don't want to open a debate necessarily, but as someone who holds degrees in philosophy with particular emphasis in logic (technically logical notation), I am curious what your "logical reasons" for Christian belief are. I am not saying there are any but I am curious, especially if you're interested in some sort of polite dialogue.

Dingle - In what way is the question irresolvable, except in the Cartesian sense of pretty much all external phenomenon being irresolvable (although Descartes himself was pretty big on God...different issue, middle-European understanding of 'reality' as a substance, etc.). I mean, by a more widely accepted epistemic standard - either logical rigor or empirical verification, or something - how is the question unable to be resolved? Again, not the opening salvo of a debate per se, it depends on your answer since I am legitimately interested in your specific approach to that position.

@Lulz - What? Are you sure that is supposed to be directed at me? I don't know what it is in reference to.

@Dexter "and I'm not sure whaat to make of your comment that "being an atheist, there is a good possibility" that I "believe that gay-ness is NOT a choice either". I'm not sure what belief or non-belief in a god would have to do with the issue of whether sexual preference is a conscious choice or not."

I think you DO know, but you want to try to find something wrong with my post. So let me ask another question instead - get 100 religion and 100 atheists in a room and say 'Raise your hand if you believe that being gay is a choice". Which group do you think raises more hands? Now I'm sure lots of people are going to chime in and say 'Well i'm x and I believe y' and I don't care. That is a statistical sample of 1.

As to discrimination against atheists - welcome to America. From the sounds of it, you were formerly Christian and now atheist. I was formerly Jewish and now atheist. I was going to be discriminated against either way. The difference, however, is I don't think we are going to hear 'Hitler should have burned all you atheists', or next time a bomb goes off at a US Embassy, I don't anyone is going to be saying 'Kill the atheists'. The discrimination is almost a theoretically discrimination - I don't know any atheists, so I am afraid of them. If all the atheists would identify themselves, get bumper stickers that said 'I'm atheist and I vote', I think THAT would be good in the long term, though it would scare the shit out of a lot of people in the short term, leading to more overt discrimination.

"also worth noting that seven U.S. states actually have requirements that public office holders believe in God. "

Yes, and those are probably the states that also still have laws against anal and oral sex on the books.

Pretty selfish of you not to want to try to convert people to Christianity. After all, all those people who don't believe in Jesus but are otherwise good people will go to hell and suffer for eternity. Either you wish that to happen (i.e. you are cruel), or you don't care that it will happen (i.e. you're cruel and selfish). Of course there's still the option that deep in your heart, you don't actually believe non-believers will go to hell (i.e. you are a hypocrite).

I'm not a Christian myself but IMO the ones that are on the streets trying to convert everyone are the best Christians, the others are hypocrites or cruel people.

LOL EvilGrass. Good point!

These discussions continue because the traditional Dawkins-type atheists and fundamentalists share the same rationalistic philosophy. They're all stuck in the 18th century, believing that reason and logic will provide all the answers we need, and they've both ignored the discovery that logic alone won't get you to the truth. And so they spend a lot of time trying to point out each other's logical flaws because they both believe that any rational person should agree with them, and neither of them can see the gaping holes in their own perspective.

wow, EvilGrass that is probably one of the best points I've ever seen anyone on these forums make. haha

@DingleberryJones, A 2007 poll by CNN tells us that a majority (56%) of people believe that gays and lesbians could not change their orientation even if they wanted to: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/

Assuming that all atheists believe that one does not choose their orientation that still leaves half of the religious population of the U.S. agreeing with me (that orientation is innate). So - religious belief does not determine it... not even close. I suspect it is due to opinions about biology and genetics and embryonic development not god. Granted that all the creationists (and there are a lot of them) can be put in the "gayness is a choice" camp simply because they don't believe god would "design" people that way and they believe its a sin and therefore a choice... and because as a group they tend to have a pretty poor understanding or respect for the biological sciences. However, what is also suggested by the data is that if you take out the fundamentalist evangelicals, an actual majority of the remaining religious folk (mostly mainline Protestants and the Catholics) believe that people don't choose sexual orientation. What I think is more to the point is if you were to ask 100 biologists whether they believe that sexual orientation is innate and you would probably get close to 100 saying yes. I think that is more the issue... whether one believes scientific research or whether one denies it. ...and plenty of religious folk believe scientific research.

As to discrimination - yes, mostly "theoretical"... but only because atheists lay low. (Guess why they lay low.) The bigotry is still there. It is probably pretty similar to gays before the gay rights movement. I live in a very socially conservative community... You mention bumper stickers... I agree with you. When I had a Darwin fish sticker on my previous car I got cursed at a lot and my car got vandalized. Very Christian.

@EvilGrass, interesting thought. Here is a counterpoint:

Matthew 6:5-6:

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

I'm pretty sure you just totally mis-applied that passage dexter. It's saying don't do good things just for attention, that's the bottom line.

Dexter,
You missed my original point completely. My point simply was, that since YOU are an atheist, there is a good chance you believe that gayness is not a choice. You are trying to find fault in my statements even though 1) You are an atheist 2) You don't believe gayness is a choice. You seem to think that there is no correlation between the two? Really? I am not suggesting that atheism CAUSED your belief.

If I am 6 years old and believe in the Easter Bunny, chances are I probably believe in Santa Claus too. But my belief in one didn't CAUSE the other.

Nor did I suggest that believing in god means you believe its a choice. However, I would say the reverse of that is probably true: I would say that of those who believe its a choice, I would bet a very high percentage of them are NOT atheist.

And I wouldn't trust any survey with the question 'Do you think being gay is a choice?' I guarantee there are people who believe it is a choice but feel uncomfortable about admitting that to Gallup, because, in their mind, they may be sanctioning discrimination.

@DingleberryJones, yes. Sorry for that. I think we got off on the wrong foot in this thread, you and I.

@Dingle - Sorry, I meant @Thucydides.

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalms 14:1
(yuck)
---
@DingleberryJones, I do think it is interesting how the numbers have changed over time.

@rlumley: I haven't even bothered reading all these probably self-justifying posts. Just want to say that "Trying to convert people (And I speak from personal experience)" is probably a very bad idea (and I speak from personal experience :~).

I am not diplomat1824. I don't even know who that is. Because I am not diplomat1824, you will never hear me say that I am.

(Romans chapter 1)

Well.

Um also I would just like to say that there is a human sacrifice in the Bible. Judges 11. What that means isn't important to me, I just want you all to know.

To lulzworth.

It irresolvable in this sense: People are emotionally invested in it, and since no point can ever be satisfactorily proven to anyone at any time, these people are not going to give ground, whereas they might if it were less of an emotion issue.

And the reason nothing can be proved, yes, as you have hinted, is epistemological. Think about it. Let's say God himself comes down. Says, "Believe!"

A scientist can just be like: mass hallucination, mass hysteria, or even just personal hallucination, or alien trick..... etc. The reverse is true is some "proof" were found that there is no God. It's hard to think of a more concrete case than what I said though, but just imagine like a diary that Moses wrote telling about how he fucking made it all up and never saw God, just kept on saying he did. People would just be like "this is faked."

lol. so in the sense that nothing can be proved, the question is irresolvable.

However does that mean no people are ever converted via evidence?

No... I just don't think it would ever work on everyone. And for the question to be resolved it has to work on everyone, know what I mean?

It's possible the question could be resolved over time via an imperceptible cultural shift, which may in fact be occurring, but it has nothing to do with atheists proselytizing, just a general slide in morals, and thus, less willingness to believe in a morally strict God. I expect that even if Christianity/Islam disappear, people will still believe in spirits etc, just because they want to and there's nothing you can say that will make them think they're wrong.

lol ok and i believe you TMW.

its a shame though, i would have been very impressed by your maturation process.

@Thucydides, we *can* disprove certain beliefs (show that they are not in agreement with truth) (e.g. the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old is provably incorrect). ...now whether people chose to believe despite contradicting evidence is another matter. But to the more general question of theism vs. atheism... yes, you are correct, we cannot prove the truth in such a matter. But that doesn't mean that we can't affect beliefs.

@Thucydides, "slide in morals"? You see that as the cause for there being more atheists than at some time in the past?

One would have thought, if one were religious, that it was the other way around.

@Thucydides, how about the fact that as science advances there are less and less "miracles" that are unexplained by natural processes? The god-of-the-gaps has less elbow room.

@DingleberryJones, that too. Either way, atheism is immoral... so the idea goes.

Of course, if morality is tied (as it is with some) to superstitious things like how you cut your hair or what you eat, then yes, morality is on the decline (has been for thousands of years, no doubt). If morality is how you treat your fellow man and your values that you hold yourself to (like being hard working and honest), then not at all. I see no correlation. Indeed, with the abolition of slavery around the world and such things as concepts of human rights being supported on an international level, I'd posit that morality is on the increase.

@ EvilGrass

First: I most certainly and honestly believe in Christ's saving grace for everyone.

Second: I freely admit to being evil, cruel, a hypocrit, and worse. I won't for a moment
stand on my own virtue. It is easy to think of myself as a "good person", and
most people who know me do express that, but it's ill-informed.

@lulzworth

It sounds interesting. I doubt that we should high jack this thread with it though. Do you have any suggested topics? Remember I'm not claiming that it's 100% logical nor do I accept that it's completely illogical. If you give some ideas for propositions then I'm sure we can agree on one.

@Anglican - Just to clarify, I want to keep "logical" in a strict sense, that is, any proposition is subject to bivalarity and therefore something is either logic or it isn't - that is, either conclusions follow from their premises or they don't.