McCain's VP choice

[Robert]

In France about a third of the population is atheist (being the most atheist nation in the EU) but I'm sure the UK has a high percentage of atheists too, so there is a large chunk of the population unrepresented by the leadership. Perhaps atheists should NOT vote for these candidates and state clearly why not.

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

If a small radical group of 5% can make talking about creation an election issue, or if a small and radical 5% can make support for Israel an issue, then a small 15% to 20% segment can certainly bring atheism into the debate if they would get together and demand it.

Indeed but who would organise such a thing? I know I couldn't be arsed.

There's also another issue to consider: I'm more concerned by party policy than personal superstition when it comes to who I vote for.
I usually vote SNP, a party currently lead by a chap named Alex Salmond. I have no idea whether he is religious or not but he is certainly not publicly atheist. This is, however, of far less concern to me than his party's policies, the main one being extricating Scotland from the United Kingdom, which is important to me and I hope I live to see it happen.

Luckily religion doesn't play that much of a role in UK or Scottish (despite the best efforts of the newest Archbishop of Scotland who is off his head) politics at the moment. The rampant bible-thumping of the USA presidential candidates is not only hilarious but very frightening.

 

[Robert]

In France about a third of the population is atheist (being the most atheist nation in the EU) but I'm sure the UK has a high percentage of atheists too, so there is a large chunk of the population unrepresented by the leadership. Perhaps atheists should NOT vote for these candidates and state clearly why not.

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

If a small radical group of 5% can make talking about creation an election issue, or if a small and radical 5% can make support for Israel an issue, then a small 15% to 20% segment can certainly bring atheism into the debate if they would get together and demand it.

Indeed but who would organise such a thing? I know I couldn't be arsed.

There's also another issue to consider: I'm more concerned by party policy than personal superstition when it comes to who I vote for.
I usually vote SNP, a party currently lead by a chap named Alex Salmond. I have no idea whether he is religious or not but he is certainly not publicly atheist. This is, however, of far less concern to me than his party's policies, the main one being extricating Scotland from the United Kingdom, which is important to me and I hope I live to see it happen.

Luckily religion doesn't play that much of a role in UK or Scottish (despite the best efforts of the newest Archbishop of Scotland who is off his head) politics at the moment. The rampant bible-thumping of the USA presidential candidates is not only hilarious but very frightening.

 

[redrumloa]

Hypocrisy? 'Atheist religion'?

You'll have to elaborate, since 'atheist religion' is an oxymoron.

You appear to have no idea what the word 'atheist' actually means.

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you. Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest? There are many parallels between fundamentalist religous nuts and atheists. Claiming something 100% fact, without proof *IS* a belief and nothing more than blind faith. Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

 

[redrumloa]

Hypocrisy? 'Atheist religion'?

You'll have to elaborate, since 'atheist religion' is an oxymoron.

You appear to have no idea what the word 'atheist' actually means.

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you. Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest? There are many parallels between fundamentalist religous nuts and atheists. Claiming something 100% fact, without proof *IS* a belief and nothing more than blind faith. Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

 

[redrumloa]

Hypocrisy? 'Atheist religion'?

You'll have to elaborate, since 'atheist religion' is an oxymoron.

You appear to have no idea what the word 'atheist' actually means.

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you. Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest? There are many parallels between fundamentalist religous nuts and atheists. Claiming something 100% fact, without proof *IS* a belief and nothing more than blind faith. Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

 

[redrumloa]

Hypocrisy? 'Atheist religion'?

You'll have to elaborate, since 'atheist religion' is an oxymoron.

You appear to have no idea what the word 'atheist' actually means.

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you. Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest? There are many parallels between fundamentalist religous nuts and atheists. Claiming something 100% fact, without proof *IS* a belief and nothing more than blind faith. Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

 

[redrumloa]

Hypocrisy? 'Atheist religion'?

You'll have to elaborate, since 'atheist religion' is an oxymoron.

You appear to have no idea what the word 'atheist' actually means.

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you. Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest? There are many parallels between fundamentalist religous nuts and atheists. Claiming something 100% fact, without proof *IS* a belief and nothing more than blind faith. Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

 

[redrumloa]

Hypocrisy? 'Atheist religion'?

You'll have to elaborate, since 'atheist religion' is an oxymoron.

You appear to have no idea what the word 'atheist' actually means.

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you. Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest? There are many parallels between fundamentalist religous nuts and atheists. Claiming something 100% fact, without proof *IS* a belief and nothing more than blind faith. Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

That's the problem. Very hard to get people who don't believe in a thing to get fanatical about not believing in it, so they generally can't be arsed.

Plus they tend to be more independent thinkers so less likely to simply agree with each other. It's like organizing anarchists.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

That's the problem. Very hard to get people who don't believe in a thing to get fanatical about not believing in it, so they generally can't be arsed.

Plus they tend to be more independent thinkers so less likely to simply agree with each other. It's like organizing anarchists.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

That's the problem. Very hard to get people who don't believe in a thing to get fanatical about not believing in it, so they generally can't be arsed.

Plus they tend to be more independent thinkers so less likely to simply agree with each other. It's like organizing anarchists.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

That's the problem. Very hard to get people who don't believe in a thing to get fanatical about not believing in it, so they generally can't be arsed.

Plus they tend to be more independent thinkers so less likely to simply agree with each other. It's like organizing anarchists.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

That's the problem. Very hard to get people who don't believe in a thing to get fanatical about not believing in it, so they generally can't be arsed.

Plus they tend to be more independent thinkers so less likely to simply agree with each other. It's like organizing anarchists.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

We can refuse to vote for people but the stating clearly why not part is a bit more tricky.

That's the problem. Very hard to get people who don't believe in a thing to get fanatical about not believing in it, so they generally can't be arsed.

Plus they tend to be more independent thinkers so less likely to simply agree with each other. It's like organizing anarchists.

 

[Robert]

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you.

That's not how it looks from here.

Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest?

Atheism is a *lack* of belief, so how can they be fervent about beliefs they don't have?

Then again, some people also struggle with the word 'liberal', don't they? ;-)

-Edit-

For what it's worth, you are not alone in your interpretation of either of the above words. With regards to atheism, this is exactly why I usually refer to myself as agnostic. The only reason I can class myself as such is that I cannot say for absolute certain that there is no such thing as a 'God'. The word atheist covers this but many (you, for instance) don't realise this and think it means *belief* there is no 'God'.
I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

The theists are the ones with the barking mad stories. Let them prove their beliefs, rather than non-believers proving their lack of barking mad stories.

 

[Robert]

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you.

That's not how it looks from here.

Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest?

Atheism is a *lack* of belief, so how can they be fervent about beliefs they don't have?

Then again, some people also struggle with the word 'liberal', don't they? ;-)

-Edit-

For what it's worth, you are not alone in your interpretation of either of the above words. With regards to atheism, this is exactly why I usually refer to myself as agnostic. The only reason I can class myself as such is that I cannot say for absolute certain that there is no such thing as a 'God'. The word atheist covers this but many (you, for instance) don't realise this and think it means *belief* there is no 'God'.
I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

The theists are the ones with the barking mad stories. Let them prove their beliefs, rather than non-believers proving their lack of barking mad stories.

 

[Robert]

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you.

That's not how it looks from here.

Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest?

Atheism is a *lack* of belief, so how can they be fervent about beliefs they don't have?

Then again, some people also struggle with the word 'liberal', don't they? ;-)

-Edit-

For what it's worth, you are not alone in your interpretation of either of the above words. With regards to atheism, this is exactly why I usually refer to myself as agnostic. The only reason I can class myself as such is that I cannot say for absolute certain that there is no such thing as a 'God'. The word atheist covers this but many (you, for instance) don't realise this and think it means *belief* there is no 'God'.
I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

The theists are the ones with the barking mad stories. Let them prove their beliefs, rather than non-believers proving their lack of barking mad stories.

 

[Robert]

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you.

That's not how it looks from here.

Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest?

Atheism is a *lack* of belief, so how can they be fervent about beliefs they don't have?

Then again, some people also struggle with the word 'liberal', don't they? ;-)

-Edit-

For what it's worth, you are not alone in your interpretation of either of the above words. With regards to atheism, this is exactly why I usually refer to myself as agnostic. The only reason I can class myself as such is that I cannot say for absolute certain that there is no such thing as a 'God'. The word atheist covers this but many (you, for instance) don't realise this and think it means *belief* there is no 'God'.
I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

The theists are the ones with the barking mad stories. Let them prove their beliefs, rather than non-believers proving their lack of barking mad stories.

 

[Robert]

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you.

That's not how it looks from here.

Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest?

Atheism is a *lack* of belief, so how can they be fervent about beliefs they don't have?

Then again, some people also struggle with the word 'liberal', don't they? ;-)

-Edit-

For what it's worth, you are not alone in your interpretation of either of the above words. With regards to atheism, this is exactly why I usually refer to myself as agnostic. The only reason I can class myself as such is that I cannot say for absolute certain that there is no such thing as a 'God'. The word atheist covers this but many (you, for instance) don't realise this and think it means *belief* there is no 'God'.
I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

The theists are the ones with the barking mad stories. Let them prove their beliefs, rather than non-believers proving their lack of barking mad stories.

 

[Robert]

Oh, I know exactly what it means thank you.

That's not how it looks from here.

Who is more fervent, or more like rabid and intollerant, in their beliefs than an athiest?

Atheism is a *lack* of belief, so how can they be fervent about beliefs they don't have?

Then again, some people also struggle with the word 'liberal', don't they? ;-)

-Edit-

For what it's worth, you are not alone in your interpretation of either of the above words. With regards to atheism, this is exactly why I usually refer to myself as agnostic. The only reason I can class myself as such is that I cannot say for absolute certain that there is no such thing as a 'God'. The word atheist covers this but many (you, for instance) don't realise this and think it means *belief* there is no 'God'.
I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

The theists are the ones with the barking mad stories. Let them prove their beliefs, rather than non-believers proving their lack of barking mad stories.