Obama mentions atheists in Inauguration Speech

javaboy

pH wrote: »

Yea, I noticed that too, so basically only the agnostics and deists are out in the cold now.

I wonder what they did to be so rudely shunned?

Imo the term "non-believers" relates more to agnostics than atheists.

Believer: "I believe in God"
Atheist: "I believe there is no God"
Agnostic: "Links?"

ZuStar

The last time atheists got much of a mention from a US President, taken as a directly from an interview which lead to law suits filed by the American Atheists.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

For more jaw-dropping, yet Bush-typical ignorance see: http://www.skeptictank.org/gbush.htm

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

interesting how its the chief justice? who says 'so help you god!?' and he repeats it... so help me god.

their judges are so wrong and still unable to challenge faith in america

The role of the judges, and specifically the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court, is not to agree with what you think to be right, or to challenge faith. They are there to interpret the Law and uphold the Constitution.

Incoming Presidents are free to include or to omit the 'so help me God' phrase from the oath. They are free to choose whether to swear on a Bible or not. They are free to choose whether to swear an oath or not - they may instead simply make an affirmation. To enforce any of these things would be a breach of the Constitution because religion may not be a test of office, and the State has no power to enact a law enforcing or establishing a religion.

Obama (like just about every other President) chose to add the 'so help me God' phrase to the oath, and to swear on Lincoln's old Bible. The job of the Chief Justice is to administer the oath in accordance with the President elects wishes - not to challenge the President Elect's faith.

cavedave

ZuStar

was originally born of the staunch pious oppression of Puritans

{citation needed}

Many of the founding fathers were not followers of an organised religion

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49.

PDN

cavedave wrote: »

{citation needed}

Many of the founding fathers were not followers of an organised religion

I think ZuStar was referring to the puritan Pilgrim Fathers who founded the colonies, not the Founding Fathers who established independence 150 years later.

There were 74 delegates in 1787, so the figures you quote would indicate that 49 were Protestants, 3 were Catholic, and 22 had no formal religious affiliation.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

To be fair there didn't look like much separation between church and state.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And it's ironic because it was originally set up to be a secularist state.

The American founding fathers also wanted the US to be a Republic, and it's ended up as a crummy Democracy... goes to show you can't always get what you want. Interesting point, the word Democracy doesn't appear once in the American Constitution.

Dades

javaboy wrote: »

Imo the term "non-believers" relates more to agnostics than atheists.

Believer: "I believe in God"
Atheist: "I believe there is no God"
Agnostic: "Links?"

That makes no sense.

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

interesting how its the chief justice? who says 'so help you god!?' and he repeats it... so help me god.

their judges are so wrong and still unable to challenge faith in america

It's not the place of the judges to challenge faith (and arguably it isn't their place to encourage it but given Obama's Christian faith I think it's acceptable). I think it is best if faith and diversity is embraced not frowned upon. Makes for a better society. Religious people will always exist, there is never going to be a point in human history when there isn't a sizeable amount of people professing faith in God or gods.

Dades wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Makes a lot of sense.

Current objective stance: "There may be a God, or there may not be a God"

Atheists: "There is no God"
Theists: "There is a God"

Both of those views deviate from the objective stance, which takes faith.

Agnostics clutch to the objective stance as they are quite happy on the fence.

Seifer

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not the place of the judges to challenge faith (and arguably it isn't their place to encourage it but given Obama's Christian faith I think it's acceptable). I think it is best if faith and diversity is embraced not frowned upon. Makes for a better society. Religious people will always exist, there is never going to be a point in human history when there isn't a sizeable amount of people professing faith in God or gods.

Yeah and the world is flat and always will be.

philologos

Seifer wrote: »

Yeah and the world is flat and always will be.

Well luckily theism isn't comparable by any standard to people who view a flat earth. :pac:

Theism is currently consistent with all forms of science that we have. Flat earthers however aren't. They're in quite a predicament compared.

Seifer

Jakkass wrote: »

Well luckily theism isn't comparable by any standard to people who view a flat earth. :pac:

Theism is currently consistent with all forms of science that we have. Flat earthers however aren't. They're in quite a predicament compared.

Theism changes itself to be consistent with whatever it feels like it needs to be consistent with without losing followers.

My point was that making statements about the future as grandoise as yours is a fruitless exercise.

Jakkass wrote:

Makes a lot of sense.

Editing a little what he said:

Imo the term "non-believers" relates more to agnostics than atheists.

Believer: "I believe in God"
Atheist: "I am a non-believer"
Agnostic: "Links?"

By his very own definition what he said makes no sense.

philologos

Seifer, people have always searched for some higher meaning in civilization right from the very start, and people have always disbelieved I guess too considering Epicurus and others, it's something that is most probably going to be with us until the end of time, and most certainly the end of our lifetime.

20goto10

What ever happened to not mixing state and religion? Obama's "lets be respectful to everyone" routine is a farce. We all know where his true beliefs are so who exactly is he trying to fool? He's the leader of the United States. He shouldn't be covering all religions or being respectful to all beliefs, he should just shut up and not mention any of them and get on with politics. I was very disappointed with his inaugral "performance". He's basically vowed to continue mixing politics and religion, he's just going to do it differently. Its not going to work, the approach was not the problem, the problem was mixing state and religion in the first place.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Makes a lot of sense.

Sure... if you base your opinion on an incorrect interpretation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheists: "There is no God"
Theists: "There is a God"

Both of those views deviate from the objective stance, which takes faith.

See the bit I've highlighted? That's the part where you are wrong.

Atheists do not (or should not) state "there is no god". Atheists do not believe there are god(s). Hence non-believers. A strict agnostic, i.e. rather than an "atheist agnostic", is not a non-believer as they will not formulate a belief on principle.

It's time for a thread to end all this atheism is a "faith" crap.

Seifer

Jakkass wrote: »

Seifer, people have always searched for some higher meaning in civilization right from the very start, and people have always disbelieved I guess too considering Epicurus and others, it's something that is most probably going to be with us until the end of time, and most certainly the end of our lifetime.

People searched for a higher meaning when they understood nothing of the world.
People in this day and age, knowing as much as we do about the world around us have no excuse for believing in such ridiculousness.

This point can be explained quite easily using the metaphore I mentioned before about how due to ignorance, people believed the world was flat.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Theism is currently consistent with all forms of science that we have. Flat earthers however aren't. They're in quite a predicament compared.

I like that you said Theism and not Christianity. Was that a typo, because I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that not all Gods, except for you own precious one, are compatible with Science.

However, will you accept that the FSM is as compatible with Science as the Judeo-Christian God?

javaboy

Dades wrote: »

That makes no sense.

In my defence, any self-proclaimed atheist* I have ever met has stated they believe there is no God.
Whereas people I've met who claim to be agnostic* say they have no belief and just go by the facts.

My interpretation of "non-believer"* is someone who doesn't believe there is a particular number of Gods, be it zero, one or fifty.



*These interpretations are probably all wrong. If so, fair enough.

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I like that you said Theism and not Christianity. Was that a typo, because I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that not all Gods, except for you own precious one, are compatible with Science.

However, will you accept that the FSM is as compatible with Science as the Judeo-Christian God?

I said theism because the discourse concerning science is generally to see the influence of a Creator, rather than a particular God on the universe. It is only when we analyse the Bible as a hypothesis and compare it's events to events in history (there are quite a few which are correlated), and look to archaeology, theology and so on, to see which hypothesis is most probable for this divine being.

The Bible hypothesis given the full picture is stronger than that of the FSM, but if we are to look at science alone, I can only concede you are correct if you view the Creator as the FSM.

Dades

javaboy wrote: »

My interpretation of "non-believer"* is someone who doesn't believe there is a particular number of Gods, be it zero, one or fifty.

Fair enough! I assume a non-believer is someone who just doesn't believe!

pH

javaboy wrote: »

My interpretation of "non-believer"* is someone who doesn't believe there is a particular number of Gods, be it zero, one or fifty.

Reminds me of a joke ... What has more legs a dinosaur or no dinosaur? *

Dades wrote: »

Fair enough! I assume a non-believer is someone who just doesn't believe!

In Obama's statement there is a strongly implied "In God" at the end of Non-believers. Otherwise if we're going to apply the phrase "non believer" to mean anyone for which you can find one thing they don't believe in we're all non-believers (FSM, vampires, Zeus ... keep going 'til you find one)


*

No dinosaur. A dinosaur has two or four legs, no dinosaur has 83 legs.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

See the bit I've highlighted? That's the part where you are wrong.

Atheists do not (or should not) state "there is no god". Atheists do not believe there are god(s). Hence non-believers. A strict agnostic, i.e. rather than an "atheist agnostic", is not a non-believer as they will not formulate a belief on principle.

Yes, but in terms of beliefs, you believe that there is no God. Likewise in terms of theistic beliefs, there is a God. Both require faith to deviate from what would be considered the current objective position on the issue which agnostics would generally cling to.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but in terms of beliefs, you believe that there is no God.

Can I ask you is there any difference between the following statements, and what (if anything) can be said about the beliefs of someone making either of them?

A) "I do not believe there is a God"
"I believe there is no God"

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but in terms of beliefs, you believe that there is no God. Likewise in terms of theistic beliefs, there is a God. Both require faith to deviate from what would be considered the current objective position on the issue which agnostics would generally cling to.

The objective position would be that there is no evidence for a divine creator, but it certainly can't be proven that their isn't one. Much the same as there is no evidence that there is a planet inhabited by tellytubbies in the Andromeda galaxy but you certainly can't prove there isn't. Now if 5 billion people believed in the tellytubby planet and there were books thousands of years old describing it, it might cause some people to believe but objectively there is still no direct evidence that the tellytubby planet exists and therefore the only objective stance is to a-tellytubbyplanet.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Both require faith to deviate from what would be considered the current objective position on the issue which agnostics would generally cling to.

I also cling to the agnostic position of not being able to prove anything. I just don't believe gods exist. To suggest faith is required to not believe anything is ridiculous.

I'd like to believe there was a benevolent god - but I can't. How exactly am I using faith to support a belief I'm not even enthusiastic about?

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

The role of the judges, and specifically the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court, is not to agree with what you think to be right, or to challenge faith. They are there to interpret the Law and uphold the Constitution.

Incoming Presidents are free to include or to omit the 'so help me God' phrase from the oath. They are free to choose whether to swear on a Bible or not. They are free to choose whether to swear an oath or not - they may instead simply make an affirmation. To enforce any of these things would be a breach of the Constitution because religion may not be a test of office, and the State has no power to enact a law enforcing or establishing a religion.

Obama (like just about every other President) chose to add the 'so help me God' phrase to the oath, and to swear on Lincoln's old Bible. The job of the Chief Justice is to administer the oath in accordance with the President elects wishes - not to challenge the President Elect's faith.

i was referring to the supreme courts judges who would rule on the case.

lostexpectation

he did say unbelievers didn't he

Dades

lostexpectation wrote: »

he did say unbelievers didn't he

Nope. Pretty sure it was "non-believers".

Obama wrote:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers."

jtsuited

so i guess there was something to discuss then!

lostexpectation

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."

"We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."

does his flub mean he's not president
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5560165.ece

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tECPBYmXcqE

lostexpectation

fwiw that gay bishop robinson speech was before the inaugural concert the day before, they had it ten minutes before the concert went on air on hbo, so nobody saw it live
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/01/gay_bishop_kick.html

here him and jon stewart cracking jokes on the daily show
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/brianjuergens/bishop-gene-robinson-brings-down-house-daily-show?&comment=64159a