Could an Atheist Democrat ever win the Presidency of the USA?

[Klur]

Is it really such a big deal in the states? I'm not trying to sound patronising or jingoistic it's just hard for me imagine someone hating me just because I'm an atheist.

Yes, it is. As other's have pointed out in the thread already, surveys show atheists as one of the least trusted group in the US. People usually cite a lack of a "moral compass" bullshit as the reason, despite the fact that atheist representation in US prisons is only like .1% compared to roughly 10% of the population identifying as atheists. Christians make up around 50% of both prison and civilian populations. Ironic.

I always found it funny that religious people never notice that the "moral laws" of their preferred deity also just happen to coincide with whatever the social norms for the society that spawned said religion already had. It's why the bible makes no mention about slave owning as being wrong, despite the fact that no modern Christian would say it's ok.

We will never see an atheist in office so long as the public perception is so negative towards them. But if you listen to Fox news and the religious right, it's Christianity that's under constant attack and persecution.

[Fexus]

Well besides this movie I know very little about him, apart from a few youtube vids. But this movie is beyond hilarious. The Theme Park, hahahahahhaha.

The best part about the senator is his laugh after he says the IQ thing.

There are couple inaccuracies and, in my opinion, cheap shots that blemished an otherwise entertaining mockumentary. Funnily enough, I though the theme park Jesus was possibly the most articulate religious apologist in the entire film.

[Fexus]

Yes, it is. As other's have pointed out in the thread already, surveys show atheists as one of the least trusted group in the US. People usually cite a lack of a "moral compass" bullshit as the reason, despite the fact that atheist representation in US prisons is only like .1% compared to roughly 10% of the population identifying as atheists. Christians make up around 50% of both prison and civilian populations. Ironic.

To be fair that could be attributed to demographics. Atheists tend to be more affluent and educated.

[Klur]

To be fair that could be attributed to demographics. Atheists tend to be more affluent and educated.

That doesn't seem to help religions case at all though. That means either a) religious people are more likely to be less intelligent or (more likely) b) religion is more likely to discourage people from learning and attempting to better their lot in life.

Anecdotal, but I've had many conversations with theist where they mention something as being unexplainable only to turn around and tell them "yes, scientists do have an explanation for that."

Kind of a tangent, but our (USA) society as a whole no longer values intelligence and science. Instead we idolize stupidity (shows like Jackass), fame without merit (Kardasians and nearly every other reality star), and plebeian mentality in general. The US is very much in it's vulgar era (as in the traditional meaning of vulgar).

[Fexus]

Oh, I guess then I'll point out that I think there are two sets of "truths." There are absolute truths, that which is actually true, and practical truths, those "truths" that might ignore ignorance or an absolute truth to determine an answer we can actually use. In this case, ethical nihilism would represent absolute truth, but you may still establish an ethical system that is a practical truth. It's just worth it to keep it mind that it is merely a practical truth. Having said that, I think there's a very limited use to moral language and it most often serves as an emotional appeal intended to flout reason.

Then I would argue ethics is fundamentally a study of practical truths. Where physics is true whether there are observers or not, ethics doesn't exist in a universe where there are no intelligent beings capable of pleasure and suffering. So the term absolute truth cannot be applied to ethics because ethics is incapable of existing in a vacuum. Therefore, ethics is the study of how we should interact with each other and our environment given that we are conscious, intelligent beings capable of suffering and pleasure. I believe that ethical systems exist; however, they do not exist absolutely. Using that reasoning, I would not consider myself an ethical nihilist.

I agree that moral language is often used as an emotional appeal, and it is unfortunate.

Why shouldn't I murder?

Because it's wrong (or because god says not to, which is fundamentally the same argument).

Even at the youngest ages people begin to answer these questions, and unfortunately society too often turns to fear of punishment to imprint the idea that murder is wrong. In reality, all this does is teach a child to be afraid of punishment. Humans (excluding psychopaths) have the extraordinary capability of empathy. We know murder is wrong not just because we might get punished, but because it causes suffering to a person and those close to him. When a child is old enough to understand the concept of suffering, he will never ask (unless he has a nihilist streak at a young age), "why is suffering bad?" The answer that question is patently obvious to any person that has felt physical or emotional pain.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't seem to help religions case at all though. That means either a) religious people are more likely to be less intelligent or (more likely) b) religion is more likely to discourage people from learning and attempting to better their lot in life.

This is the ecological fallacy. Being rich or educated might cause people to become atheistic AND less likely to commit crime. If that's the case it isn't atheism that's keeping people out of jail, it's wealth or education level.

[Deleted]

There are couple inaccuracies and, in my opinion, cheap shots that blemished an otherwise entertaining mockumentary. Funnily enough, I though the theme park Jesus was possibly the most articulate religious apologist in the entire film.

Yeah but come ooooooooooon. It's so entertaining. I liked the Jesus guy, but just the thought of a super religious Theme Park out of all things.

I'd visit it.

[Zhangfei]

Then I would argue ethics is fundamentally a study of practical truths. Where physics is true whether there are observers or not, ethics doesn't exist in a universe where there are no intelligent beings capable of pleasure and suffering. So the term absolute truth cannot be applied to ethics because ethics is incapable of existing in a vacuum. Therefore, ethics is the study of how we should interact with each other and our environment given that we are conscious, intelligent beings capable of suffering and pleasure. I believe that ethical systems exist; however, they do not exist absolutely. Using that reasoning, I would not consider myself an ethical nihilist.

Physics (like all science) is a human construct as much as ethics. There was no physics before humanity. Every element of it comes about from human observation.

[Fexus]

Yeah but come ooooooooooon. It's so entertaining. I liked the Jesus guy, but just the thought of a super religious Theme Park out of all things.

I'd visit it.

Oh I enjoyed it very much in the same way a conservative loves listening to Rush Limbaugh. It's comforting to listen to someone you mostly agree with, but not challenging or stimulation per se.

- - - Updated - - -

Physics (like all science) is a human construct as much as ethics. There was no physics before humanity. Every element of it comes about from human observation.

But the truth of physics exist outside of the minds of humans. If earth is destroyed tomorrow and all the humans are dead, F=MA is still as true as it ever was.

[BLCalliente]

as an atheist i can understand why. the conversations i've had with religious people in person explain everything. they are extremely threatened when faced with something they know doesn't add up. they get scared and angry. so much that it overrides their distrust of muslims and black people.

Indoctrination from birth is a hard thing to overcome.

[Zhangfei]

But the truth of physics exist outside of the minds of humans. If earth is destroyed tomorrow and all the humans are dead, F=MA is still as true as it ever was.

No, it wouldn't, because those concepts would stop existing as there'd be nobody to conceive of them. That's a framework, a description of what is happening. If the describer(s) die, then it's all gone.

[Zhangfei]

I think it's clear he was saying that gravity would work tomorrow as it does today even if every human being died sometime tonight.

Yes, what humans call gravity would still happen. The planets would still turn. But physics wouldn't exist, physical laws wouldn't exist. They are human constructs that came into existence because humans thought them up, so without humans they'd disappear.

[Fexus]

I think it's clear he was saying that gravity would work tomorrow as it does today even if every human being died sometime tonight.

I would also say I believe the language of mathematics is universal and was discovered by humans, not invented.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, what humans call gravity would still happen. The planets would still turn. But physics wouldn't exist, physical laws wouldn't exist. They are human constructs that came into existence because humans thought them up, so without humans they'd disappear.

So entropy no longer occurs if humans are gone?

[Zhangfei]

I would also say I believe the language of mathematics is universal and was discovered by humans, not invented.

I'm going to go with invented unless you can magic up an alien, sentient, species who discovered it separately from us. It doesn't make it any less universal in scope, but it is still human-based knowledge.

So entropy no longer occurs if humans are gone?

The universe will continue to function in myriad ways when humans are gone. The concept of entropy won't exist, however.

[Endus]

Yes, what humans call gravity would still happen. The planets would still turn. But physics wouldn't exist, physical laws wouldn't exist. They are human constructs that came into existence because humans thought them up, so without humans they'd disappear.

The human study of physics would end. Physics is the actual, physical processes. We study Physics. We didn't create it.

[Fexus]

I'm going to go with invented unless you can magic up an alien, sentient, species who discovered it separately from us. It doesn't make it any less universal in scope, but it is still human-based knowledge.

If you have 1 star, then you receive another star, you now have 2 stars. It doesn't matter what choose to symbolize the idea of one, the idea of one thing has always existed. The idea that one thing and another one thing makes two things has always existed. An observer is not required.

[Zhangfei]

The human study of physics would end. Physics is the actual, physical processes. We study Physics. We didn't create it.

I can point back in history to people creating physics. To quote wikipedia:

Physics (from Ancient Greek: φυσική (ἐπιστήμη) phusikḗ (epistḗmē) “knowledge of nature”, from φύσις phúsis "nature"[1][2][3]) is the natural science that involves the study of matter[4] and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.[5] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves

Physics is the study of matter, time, space and energy. It is a human creation. If humans died, physics would cease to exist.

If you have 1 star, then you receive another star, you now have 2 stars. It doesn't matter what choose to symbolize the idea of one, the idea of one thing has always existed. The idea that one thing and another one thing makes two things has always existed. An observer is not required.

Sounds exactly like a human applying abstract concepts, which is what I am getting at. Thank you for explaining my point for me better!

[Fexus]

Sounds exactly like a human applying abstract concepts, which is what I am getting at. Thank you for explaining my point for me better!

If you want to play the reductionist game, I'm happy to oblige. What makes an abstract concept carry the characteristic of existence and less than an atom?

[Klur]

This is the ecological fallacy. Being rich or educated might cause people to become atheistic AND less likely to commit crime. If that's the case it isn't atheism that's keeping people out of jail, it's wealth or education level.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Christians are or aren't more likely to commit crimes, just that if atheists were as immoral as the general public believes they are then the prison's would have a disproportionate ratio of atheists to the general population of atheists. Instead of 10% population /.1% prison pop. it would be something more like 10%/ 10+%. This would be true regardless of what background an atheist comes from because they like to eat babies and rape and murder wantonly. In other words, atheism either has a positive affect on morals or it has no affect at all.

But I don't think education has anything to do with atheism. It's correlation, not causation. If you are a naturally inquisitive person you are more likely to seek out answers that make logical sense, thus leading you to seek education and question religious beliefs. The two go hand in hand, not one leading the other.

[Zhangfei]

If you want to play the reductionist game, I'm happy to oblige. What makes an abstract concept carry the characteristic of existence and less than an atom?

Pardon? I don't get this statement.

[Zhangfei]

Yes, he's applying an abstract concept because the only means of communication he has that can be used here is language. So he needs to use language to describe things that would continue to exist, even in the absence of language. It's not a particularly great point to use that against him.

Actually that's a superb point and backs me up further. All abstract, human-created processes are human-created and therefore, if humans died, they'd cease to exist. Concepts are only held in the minds of humans and on physical texts humans create and understand - if humans die out then the first is obviously gone and the second is irrelevant.

I think you're falling into a self-defeating argument, here.