Most athiests are in fact anti-theist, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. No intelligent atheist denies the possibility of a greater being. Probability is another matter. "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" Just the man made ones that have been presented, with zero evidence. Anti-theists also renounce fairies, ghosts and Zues. "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XLgYAHHkPFs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I tend to agree with Lennon on the issue.
It sounds like you're saying that atheists are no better than radical theists if they decide to do this, and that they should fight for secularism in politics instead. Did you read the OP? That is exactly what they are doing. I'm assuming you're just taking the opportunity for a joke. Do you really not see the point?
I think a rally like this does serve a purpose. Why does being an Atheist disqualify one for public office? Because that is what is going on. It's not so much that atheists need more representation, it's more of why aren't they representing more?
I would think the purpose of this would be pretty profound. It could seem on the surface to be a bit counterintuitive.... rallying for the right to not believe in something and not be persecuted or marginalized for doing so... but our country is founded partially on the principle that someone who has different religious or spiritual beliefs (read here as none) should not be treated differently solely because of it. The fact is, our country is entrenched enough in religion that even today there are many ways in which the religious marginalize the non-religious, and elected representation is a big example. I could see why the inability to find a consensus to elect representation that doesn't at least portray themselves as religious would be a big reason that the general message of at least promoting ACCEPTANCE of those who are not religious would be one that said group would want to project and display wherever possible. I think those of us that don't really care to choose a side or a moniker in this debate would be glad just to not have our choices limited by something with which we don't necessarily agree is a required component to qualified representation in government or elsewhere. Plus... unicorns.
To my knowledge there is only 1 person in the entire Congress who is not a deist, Pete Stark, and even he is only a unitarian. So, despite making up somewhere between 18-20% of the population, nontheists have exactly zero representation in Congress. That's a damned shame, almost as much of a shame as guys like this running the country.
I wasn't aware that it did. Do you have a link? Winning an election isn't a civil right. And being unable to win an election doesn't mean you're being persecuted.
Correct, it means you're being discriminated against. But hey, that's why we're organizing in the first place.
We don't have proportional representation in this country. You have to win a majority of each district. I doubt seriously you can find many districts in this country that are majority atheist, and especially that call themselves atheist, considering it's only 1.6% of the country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States). Conversely, Mormons and Jews are overrepresented in government compared to their percentage of the population, because they make up majority populations in some areas. Now if you can get an amendment to get a Congressional district drawn up to cover the hip neighborhoods in several urban cities across the country, maybe you can get your atheist representative. Unless of course, the hip religion has become Buddhism by then.
I will respectfully disagree with this. People not voting you into public office isn't discrimination. Was Walter Mondale being discriminated against in 1984? Just because your views happen to be in the minority doesn't (necessarily) mean you're being discriminated against.
I think the term "discriminate" has a muddled meaning in our society now, along with persecution. The difference between that and persecution is that one is systematic or part of a set of rules, whereas the other is just general prejudice. I'd say the prejudicial treatment of the non-theist community, specifically by theists, qualifies. Now, I know atheists who discriminate against theists too, but it's not as if that is a drop in the bucket when compared to their counterparts. (both in terms of quantity and intensity)
If the possibility exists, then wouldn't it make more sense to live as it is true? I ask this because I once wrote a paper on the history of probability and had to do research on many key contributors, one including 17th century french mathematician Blaise Pascal. Part of his study in Probability included attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God. The conclusion he came to was that belief in God is rational: "If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing. We are compelled to gamble." Not trying to attack you for your beliefs, what you believe is cool and all that, I am just wondering why you would live as God does not exist if you believe that there is a chance that God does exist. I just always assumed that atheists believed that there was no chance that God existed.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v9WRG4e6m2s?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v9WRG4e6m2s?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
So if someone won't vote for Obama because he's black that is not discrimination? If someone won't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon that is not discriminatory? It might be legal to that, but that doesn't make it right. Not sure what this has to do with Walter Mondale.
Just because you don't vote for someone doesn't mean you're discriminating against them. What if you just liked another candidate better?
I believe there are some studies/polls out there asking "who are you least likely to vote for" based on things like race, religion, gender, age, etc. Atheists, by far, lead the polling as a group whom people would not vote for simply because they are atheist. Draw your own conclusion from that, I suppose.
Well we're still working on the race and gender thing. But I'm sure you've had the experience of living in small town America. Everything revolves around religion. Politics is dirty and if a candidate can easily smear an opponent by saying "he's godless" you know he's not going to pull punches.
Well, of course, and it used to be that being a "n*gger lover" or a homosexual was a political death sentence as well. That changed over time, and atheists are next in line on this whole cultural awakening thing.
Sorry this isn't an insult, but your claim is wrong and not supported by evidence. That wasn't the question though. The claim being made is that it's discrimination because some voters specifically wouldn't vote for someone who is atheist, because they're atheist. So pointing out people who would vote against an atheist for other reasons is attacking a straw man.
