c465e95982041204a9b3…

Krydor on September 6, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Totally.

One problem is that Atheist conjures up bad images for people: they think of militant atheists.

jaychandra on September 6, 2007 at 8:22 PM

1. What, exactly, makes an atheist “militant” to you? Be specific.

2. Which is worse: militant atheists or militant Christians?

3. (No need to ask about militant Muslims, because we all agree that they are the worst.)

If a Muslim was running as a conservative and happened to be in agreement with me on the issues, I would consider voting for him/her.

However, If it was a choice between two candidates, with the same exact stance on the issues; would vote for an Atheist before a Muslim, any day of the week.

Atheists less than a Muslim? I’d rather have an atheist than ANY religious fanatic, regardless of their faith. They are more level headed and able to focus on concepts that religious folks automatically refer to scripture for.

I don’t want a theocracy, I want a secular government that respects the rights of peaceful religions.

csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Just because someone is religious, it doesn’t logically follow that that person is also a fanatic.

To figure that one out, we’d need a different poll.

There are more functional atheists than the militant kind. Britain is largely unchurched these days but people don’t go out of their way to think at length about whether there is or is not a God and how they should therefore live their lives. Much the same of the non-churchgoing in the U.S., though a larger portion of our populace still goes to worship services.

jaychandra on September 6, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Sure there are, but just like Christians, it’s their spokespeople who become the face of atheism to those who are not atheists.

I’m sick of hearing about abortion clinic bombings and purple teletubbies, but it goes with the territory.

The only time I ever have a problem with atheists is when they talk down to me.

BadgerHawk on September 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Or when they’re simply insulting.

“Religion is regarded by the common as true, by the wise as false, and by the leaders as useful”
- Seneca the Younger

MB4 on September 7, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Case in point. We only believe because we’re stupid and/or evil. Because of course secular principles like doing something for the benefit of all have never been followed by stupid people, looked down upon by wise people and used maliciously by leaders.

No, that never happened. It’s only religion that is the opiate of the masses.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Hitchens doesn’t speak for me and doesn’t make that claim. Conversely, Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for Christians but claims to do just that.

In case you were wondering, Penn and Teller are probably the closest to my overall outlook on atheism and whatnot.

I call bull crap on this…

Aggie85 on September 6, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Touché.

(AllahPundit has his way of generating network traffic, and I have mine. You took the bait – that’s all.)

Not that this factored into the Zogby poll in any way :-)

Ahem, Pew poll.

I hate to harp on this again, but I feel a need to clarify my thoughts here. Billy Graham was considered an ‘Evangelist’. I took that to mean someone who told other people the Gospel. However with that definition, I would think that Catholics would also be ‘evangelical’ too. As far as I know, they evangelize (preach the Gospel) all over the world too.

Your original point – that at least in some contexts, ‘Evangelical’ has an objective definition and/or is synonymous with ‘Protestant’ – is valid. In parts of Europe the two are indeed synoymous, and ‘evangelical’ is not directly associated with active evangelism of the Gospel.

Not that this factored into the Zogby poll in any way :-)

I just think the category and term is misleading. Are Baptists evangelical? Presbyterians? Methodists? Episcopalian? Greek Orthodox? Lutheran? There are different designations and I know several differences in their beliefs. I don’t know the definition of ‘evangelical’.

ThackerAgency on September 6, 2007 at 10:09 PM

entagor on September 7, 2007 at 2:20 AM

That is an excellent point! Obvious once you think of it, but excellent!

(for google traffic flypaper)-

SEXY Pew Poll: Which DARING Candidate would American BOOBS get HOT for: a WILD atheist, or a PANTIES-wearing Muslim?

And, if so, would they then be voting for themselves?

God alone can answer that.

No iPhone, traffic’s down, now this.

Indianapolis Colts playing destroying the
New Orleans Saints. That is why you haven’t got your “page views” from me tonight.

I will make up for it tomorrow.

This says more about the general public’s lack of familiarity with Islam than preference over atheism, if you ask me.

TexasDan on September 6, 2007 at 6:56 PM

+ GW’s constant stream of ‘religion of peace’. Think for a sec though of how well-publicized many ACLU cases are and compared to sharia creep…crickets.

Spirit of 1776 on September 6, 2007 at 6:57 PM

This is because atheists do not lie about their beliefs

MB4 on September 7, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Seneca has some of the most awesome quotes ever.

That to me …trumps all.

Eff the islamists..hands down. That is our threat..it’s our heads…or theirs.

Pick.