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

[Deffry]

Not Belief is a mathematical negation of a positive. Means it is still a belief.
You cannot make the absolute claim, since the 100% fact doesn't exist. You have to either resort to ignorance. Or you have to accept to just negating the same motive a believer has, and with better odds for your case.

God does not exist, it is not positive (I believe +1) or negative (I do not believe -1). If something does not exist, it is 0. If you have 0 you can not deny it or acknowledge it. Zero is always zero, void, nothing, no matter if you add + or - to it.

[Fexus]

I always said "I don't believe in God". I never said that there is no God.
That escape route I mean.
That's why such people aren't called Atheists.

If they are saying they "don't believe in God" in a religious sense, then they may not be atheists.

I would say, "I don't believe there is a God." I would not say, "I believe there is no God."

The distinction may seem semantic, but it is quite consequential.

[zorkuus]

They are not rare at all, they are called religious people. They are all acknowledging that their belief in good is faith based. No major religious organization claims to have proof that god exists.

They don't need proof to make the claim that they know.

[Zhangfei]

If they are saying they "don't believe in God" in a religious sense, then they may not be atheists.

I would say, "I don't believe there is a God." I would not say, "I believe there is no God."

The distinction may seem semantic, but it is quite consequential.

It is a MASSIVE distinction in terms of epistemology. It's sad people don't get it.

[Klur]

All evidence is based on individual's senses. If you cannot repeat the event under laboratory circumstances, it doesn't devalue the fact it existed or how it happened. Humans base all their arguments on evidence provided from this source so to deny it seems counter-intuitive.

This has nothing to do with miracles.

You said if someone has an religious experience it's evidence. Miracles are religious experiences. They cannot happen outside of a deity's intervention.

And not being able to repeat it does devalue experiences as evidence. If I claim I saw a ghost once that's not proof that ghosts exist. I would need to provide evidence that they exist. Otherwise it's just as likely that I saw a shadow and perceived it incorrectly or possible had a minor hallucination or any other number of much more likely factors.

[Wildtree]

How is it any different to me saying I don't believe Liverpool will win the league?

hah.... now we have still a straw man example but a rather rational one...

You don't believe Liverpool wins the PL.. Neither do I believe my club holds the league this year.
Now do not know about you, but I am self critical to say, that I do believe my club doesn't have the ability to pull that one off. They still can do it..
But my faith in the team is gone. See how I earlier argued not believing in something triggers a negative belief? The belief in the opposite.

[madmanx]

Strawman alert...
These kind of posts are the reason why discussions about Religion are actually against the forum rules.
Because no one can discuss with serious approach about it, sooner or later such brain diarrhea appears and ruins the show.

You might want to Google strawman argument. You might also want to take on a more civil tone.

[Zhangfei]

You said if someone has an religious experience it's evidence. Miracles are religious experiences. They cannot happen outside of a deity's intervention.

A miracle implies something different to an individual having an experience. I do not consider them comparable.

And not being able to repeat it does devalue experiences as evidence.

No it doesn't. Historical evidence is as valid as scientific. Just because we can't "redo" Julius Caesar doesn't mean anything he said or works about him are less than the squeaky pop test.

You can claim what you like. It depends what you are arguing. If you said you saw a ghost, fine. If you then argue that ghosts must be real, that is a different claim.

[Fexus]

I bit like we can't say with 100% certainty that there isn't a cherry lollipop orbiting the star Sirius but......

Claiming that I am 100% sure that there isn't a cherry lollipop orbiting Sirius does not make me look like an idiot.

Claiming that I am only 99.99% sure there isn't a cherry lollipop orbiting Sirius does make me look like an idiot.

I would genuinely like to respond, but I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Would you mind clarifying?

[Vizardlorde]

A miracle implies something different to an individual having an experience. I do not consider them comparable.



No it doesn't. Historical evidence is as valid as scientific. Just because we can't "redo" Julius Caesar doesn't mean anything he said or works about him are less than the squeaky pop test.

You can claim what you like. It depends what you are arguing. If you said you saw a ghost, fine. If you then argue that ghosts must be real, that is a different claim.

Ive seen a levitating fork... in my defense I was sleep deprived.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

To be honest it has already likely happened. I am sure plenty of men that have been President have played the part, said the words, but never had a lick of faith in anything. Hell I even put that on a lot of people that claim to have faith.

Playing the part isn't faith. It is just playing the part. I know a lot of people in that boat.

[Zhangfei]

Ive seen a levitating fork... in my defense I was sleep deprived.

I've seen loads of magic tricks. Seeing doesn't necessitate believing

[Fexus]

To be honest it has already likely happened. I am sure plenty of men that have been President have played the part, said the words, but never had a lick of faith in anything. Hell I even put that on a lot of people that claim to have faith.

Playing the part isn't faith. It is just playing the part. I know a lot of people in that boat.

I think it's more than likely our current president is an atheist. Jefferson was close to being an atheist and open about it, and atheism was probably more unacceptable back then. I wouldn't be surprised if he and many other US founding fathers were atheists.

[stumpy]

I think it's more than likely our current president is an atheist. Jefferson was close to being an atheist and open about it, and atheism was probably more unacceptable back then. I wouldn't be surprised if he and many other US founding fathers were atheists.

Keep in mind that due to America's early restrictions on the vote, people who thought like Jefferson et al were probably a larger percentage of the voterbase.

[S7orm]

Openly atheist? Not in the next years. Atheism is the cool thing to hate at the moment in the US (and here too, with the canonization of the last 2 popes people went nuts for religion)

[madmanx]

I would genuinely like to respond, but I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Would you mind clarifying?

The point is that his original statement is absurd.

There are a billion idiotic statements that could be made that we have no way of proving if they are right or wrong. The only difference between saying that god exists/does not exist and that there is an invisible planet ruled by goldfish between Earth and Mars is that one of them has a tradition in folklore. That does not warrant it a higher burden of proof.

Just read the bible objectively and realize how incredibly narrow minded and stupid it is. How many flaws there are. How cruel it can be.Just the fact that one of the earlier books does not end with "P.S. It is round!".

Then we have the pure offensiveness of it. To believe in a god that would welcome many nazi war criminals into heaven but throw Gandhi in hell. Really, this does not seem incredibly stupid to anyone?

How about the fact that it only deals with things that the people who god spoke to had actually seen with their own eyes? Or that it took several generations to walk from Egypt to Palestine..what? Mary and Joseph had to go to their place of birth to "register" ...no they didn't. The Romans wrote down laws and documented everything, they could have done it where they lived at the moment.

Then there is the tiny question on why god showed up as a burning bush in Palestine and as several animals in India amongst other examples of snake men, rocks, rivers and divine mountains...and then said totally different things to all the people. Is he insane?

If he wants me to need 100% proof that this nonsense isn't real then I will ask him to give me the same proof that there isn't a cherry lollipop orbiting Sirius.

That was my point.

[Zhangfei]

The point is that his original statement is absurd.

There are a billion idiotic statements that could be made that we have no way of proving if they are right or wrong. The only difference between saying that god exists/does not exist and that there is an invisible planet ruled by goldfish between Earth and Mars is that one of them has a tradition in folklore. That does not warrant it a higher burden of proof.

That's silly. Metaphysics is not the same as physics. They're not equal statements logically or realistically. One could argue that a lollipop circles Saturn and you can dismiss it because it is actually provable - one could invest money and resources into finding it. We have the scientific method as a particularly brilliant way to discover physical facts.

There is no equivalent experiment for metaphysics. Finding physical proof of God is like asking what sound red makes. The scientific method has nothing to say about God just like it has nothing to say about honour or justice - the concepts are not physical.

[Spectral]

I wouldn't be surprised if he and many other US founding fathers were atheists.

Frankly, I'd be absolutely shocked. A few were deeply religious, many were deists, and there was generally a lot more religious diversity among our founders than modern politicians. Quite a few of these guys were serious philosophically and gave a great deal of thought to their beliefs. The thing is, atheism wasn't a particularly tenable position at the time, with our lack of understanding of how the universe formed, how life evolved, how things work in general. In the context of the 18th century, deism was an entirely reasonable, almost Occam's Razor style explanation for how things came to be. A number of the Founders were skeptic extraordinaires, but I'm not aware of any evidence of them being atheists.

[rayvio]

I suspect that if some of the founding fathers of the US had been atheists there'd be a lot less talk of god in their constitution, pledge of allegiance, etc

[Calfredd]

I suspect that if some of the founding fathers of the US had been atheists there'd be a lot less talk of god in their constitution, pledge of allegiance, etc

The "Under God" line in the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even added until the '50s wasn't it?