You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
The latest Gallup Poll is in. The Economist graphic below tells the story:
That’s slightly below 50% who would vote for a qualified atheist candidate. No real change since last time…
[tags]atheist, atheism, gay, homosexual[/tags]
Someday soon we will break that elusive 50% mark! I claim it on faith!!
I don’t get it. It doesn’t make sense to me. (Not the chart, the prejudice is what I don’t get.)
Why? Why wouldn’t people vote for somebody who arbitrarily decides that gods don’t exist? I mean, sure, science can’t prove or disprove the existence of gods, but what’s so wrong with somebody who decides to ignore science and decide that gods don’t exist? I don’t get it. Is science and intellectual integrity that popular? Is hostility to religion not universally acceptable? Are we alone in wanting to send police into homes of religious parents and take their children away?
Nice post, John Scott. Nice blog, also. You’re an absolute perfect example of why I find your juvenile, hypocritically selective, and intellectually dishonest position of agnosticism so ridiculous. Yeah, keep sitting up there on your imaginary moral highground, while dishonestly suspending what is absolutely impossible to suspend — a belief or lack of belief either way.
I’ll stick with my personal, intellectually HONEST postion of simply lacking a belief in someone else’s asinine EXTRAORDINARY claim, thank you very much. You and I both honestly admit that we don’t have knowledge either way (the true definition of agnosticism), but I’m not so pathetically desperate to consider myself so intellectually superior that I’ll actually deceive myself into thinking that I don’t have a belief or lack of belief on the issue. Because I HONESTLY do. Ooh, what arrogance! I’m soooo arbitrary!
How did you put it in your last post on this blog? Oh Yeah:
Smug, arrogant, holier than thou, annoyingly selective, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, know it all, militant agnosticism, zero
By the way, what’s your opinion on the current Raelian Revolution? Sure hope you’re consistent, and DISHONESTLY suspend your belief or lack of belief on that one, too! ‘Cause after all, you can’t DISPROVE it. We just don’t, and CAN’T know. Honestly, it would be downright refreshing to finally see an agnostic who doesn’t selectively apply logic to the countless list of UNPROVABLE extraordinary claims, while conveniently excluding themselves from the asinine accusations they so frequently bombard atheists with. I hope you’re not one of those blatantly hypocritical agnostics who single out atheists, and these crazy things we put on a pedestal called “deities”, while dismissing every other unprovable claim that comes down the pike. Shit, you are aren’t you? Well, there goes my Christmas wish.
My apologies to Hemant for getting off topic. So, to get back on topic, I’d like to ask John Scott, AKA Mr. High N Mighty, what difference does it make it if an atheist “arbitrarily decides that gods don’t exist”? What does that have to do with being qualified for political office (you know, the same political office that the oh so tolerant Christians who, as you say, “tend to focus on the virtues of belief, love, faith, hope, etc.” once barred atheists from holding.) Why should that be any different than a theist who “arbitrarily” decides that gods do exist? If they’re qualified, they’re qualified. More of those double standards, eh, John?
Mormons seem to be making progress. I think this may be in part because of the fact that there’s a Mormon canditate who is a legitimate contender. Still, Mormons, homosexuals, and atheists are still the bottom three, so it looks like my brother should go ahead with his candidacy…
This survey is obviously rigged. Atheists came in last only because of the glaring omission of “Skanky Syphilitic Witch Doctor Amateur Bottle Brush Abortionists With Tourette’s Syndrome And Overpowering Halitosis.” If that category had been included we would have been second to last. It’s ridiculous that the SSWDABBAWTSAOH’s were left out. It’s an outrage, I tell you!
That photo of the three of them looks like a poster for a rhythm and blues group called “Hillary and the Opponents.”
You gotta believe
Gotta believe, gotta believe in me
You gotta believe in me
(gotta believe me)
That I won’t never hurt you
That poster is incredibly weird – it makes Hillary look like a hobbit, with Giant Willard and Giant Barack with their gigantic heads leaning in to gobble her up.
You have a wild imagination, stogoe.
The name of the group is “The Frontrunners”. The picture depicts them on tour singing the old Human League hit:
Don’t You Want Me, Baby?
It’s #1 on the charts with a margin of error of +/- 4%.
Interesting. I initially assumed John Scott’s comment was satire. Apparently it’s not. Oh well.
There sure are weird people out there.
I’d be interested in seeing separate polls for the two major parties (and even the minor ones), to see what the differences were.
No, it wasn’t satire. Just another one of his snide, sardonic shots at those of us who don’t subscribe to the only “intellectually sound” position of agnosticism. Read his blog, he is the epitome of the arrogant, holier than thou, intellectually superior agnostic. As he said in his post, atheists have no “intellectual integrity”. Oh, the irony…
He also loves throwing around the term “fundamentalist atheism”. If there’s such a thing as “fundamentalist atheism”, then there’s definitely fundamentalist agnosticism. He fits in the latter PERFECTLY. Ooh, he and his ilk probably won’t like that.
He’s also a good little soldier fighting the good fight on behalf of the poor persecuted, victimized MAJORITY, against the big bad, rude n crude intolerant MINORITY.
Don’t know if that was directed at me, but if so, it’s a little more accurate than what HE calls my position of atheism.
Ha ha, no, it was directed at him.
Just for you, Tab.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.