Spokane7
52°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
Today, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and humanists in the Palouse joined forces to announce the launch of their coalition and its first event. The new Palouse Coalition of Reason (Palouse CoR), made up of three non-theistic organizations in Moscow and Pullman, will host leading atheists and evolutionary thinkers PZ Myers, Daniel Dennett, Jen McCreight and Fred Edwords in a pair of International Darwin Day events at two local universities. These events, which together are called “Darwin on the Palouse,” have been funded by the American Humanist Association and are its premier International Darwin Day celebration for 2012. More here.
Question: Would you vote for an atheist for president?
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
Sisyphus on February 01 at 12:31 p.m.
Of course. The question implies that atheists lack principles or integrity or that religious people automatically have them. Certainly we know the latter isn’t true.
duroc on February 01 at 12:31 p.m.
(You’ve got a subject/verb agreement issue in your headline there, DFO).
I don’t know if I could vote for an all-out atheist, because you’d have to be pretty stupid to attempt to run for the office of president and be an avowed atheist. (In other words, I would question the candidate’s sanity).
I certainly would have no compunction voting for an agnostic or a humanist, though. Sometimes the certainty of atheists is just as worrisome as the certainty of the fundamentalists. I find it more refreshing when people say they don’t know, and can’t know.
duroc on February 01 at 12:34 p.m.
Okay, DFO fixed the error I was talking about. Quick as lightning, that guy!
I agree with Sisyphus about the integrity/principals of atheists. But I would still question the sanity of any candidate who who run openly as an atheist. It would be political suicide, at least right now. Maybe when I’m an old codger, it’d be possible.
Aaron on February 01 at 12:54 p.m.
Thanks Sis-took the words out of my mouth!
CdAHumanist on February 01 at 12:54 p.m.
As an Atheist myself, I would obviously vote for a qualified Atheist presidential candidate. Sadly, the majority of Americans would not and Atheists were are the group the public is the least comfortable with.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx
hhuseland on February 01 at 12:59 p.m.
The one saving grace is that once an aetheist dies we won’t have to put up with them any more.
Sisyphus on February 01 at 1:01 p.m.
I dunno about that Herb, they start to smell just like religious people do when they decay.
Norther on February 01 at 1:05 p.m.
I might vote for an athiest as long as he/she aren’t as threatened by religious folk as the evangelicals seem to be about athiests. But I have to admit, I like duroc’s idea about agnostics. Of course, I would vote for a goat worshipper if he/she was qualified and left their religion at home and out of my government.
duroc on February 01 at 1:06 p.m.
Wow, Herb. That was pretty low, coming from you. I didn’t know you were in charge of the Afterlife. I underestimated you and your banjo skills, apparently.
I thought you were a bit classier than that.
Aaron on February 01 at 1:07 p.m.
Seems like the “bay-view” is quite narrow these days
eclafitz on February 01 at 1:09 p.m.
Herb, I found it funny. I don’t tak myself to serious and enjoy a good joke!
eclafitz on February 01 at 1:09 p.m.
*take
DFO on February 01 at 1:10 p.m.
@ CdAHumanist … your second comment on this thread was deleted. I don’t think I have to explain why. Don’t do it again.
CdAHumanist on February 01 at 1:16 p.m.
@DFO: Yeah, I figured that was coming.
duroc on February 01 at 1:17 p.m.
I’m not an atheist, but Herb’s comment really rubbed me the wrong way. You want to know why religious people get a bad name in this country? It’s because of arrogant attitudes like that. Show a little humility, a little grace, and a little love. If you’re so sure of yourself, why bother crowing about it?
I just don’t get it. Saying “You’re all going to hell” seems just as arrogantly misguided as “I am absolutely certain there is no God or other Higher Power.”
Sheesh.
Norther on February 01 at 1:18 p.m.
@ duroc - amen! (couldn’t resist). but seriously, I agree with you.
JeanieSpokane on February 01 at 1:22 p.m.
I have a problem with it. How do they do the installation? What about holding and carrying cash, with “In God We Trust” burning a hole in their pockets. However, the people I vote for have to answer to my standard of professionalism and integrity and ethics. God or no God. I cringe around any uber-belief system that has to cram it down my throat like little pontificaters. And I avoid all politicians that have soap boxes stuck to their rear while they holler about their opponents’ closeted skeletons - thereby discrediting themselves under my three standards.
arliacne on February 01 at 1:23 p.m.
A zealot of any flavor would not make a very desirable leader of the free world. I agree with several that an agnostic or humanist would be the best choice over anyone who maintains a superstitious belief system.
CdAHumanist on February 01 at 1:23 p.m.
@duroc: I totally agree. As an Atheist, that really is one of the more offensive statements I’ve ever heard. But I have to keep my mouth shut before I get kicked off of here.
And, for the record, almost all Atheists fall into this category: “De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
That is number 6 on Dawkins scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
Number 7’s are as equally evangelical as number 1’s and we probably agree that anything to that extreme is not a good thing.
arliacne on February 01 at 1:26 p.m.
Keep in mind there are many who feel that phrase should be stricken from both our currency and our pledge.
Aaron on February 01 at 1:27 p.m.
Does anyone else notice the irony of an atheist post and the running advertising banner is for ALL SAINTS catholic school? It’s nice to have a good laugh once in a while
CdAHumanist on February 01 at 1:28 p.m.
Quote JeanieSpokane: What about holding and carrying cash, with “In God We Trust” burning a hole in their pockets.”
That’s why I only use debit cards. :)
arliacne on February 01 at 1:29 p.m.
My banner ad is for free beef from Les Schwab. Go figure.
fortboise on February 01 at 1:41 p.m.
Duroc had me at “you’d have to be pretty stupid to attempt to run for the office of president,” except that it’s funnier than sensible.
You do have to be a certain sort of person to go into politics, and to seek what has to be one of the worst jobs in the world. The pay is OK, the residuals are great, but you have to put up with steady vilification from half the populace, and the occasional nut job who wants to kill you. The only thing worse than aspirants with a legitimate chance at winning are the aspirants who have none, such as Ms. Palin, Ms. Bachmann, Rick Perry, and so on.
But what does any of that have to do with unfounded beliefs in the supernatural, really?
As for that Palouse Coalition of Reason, well done on the big event!
fortboise on February 01 at 1:47 p.m.
Jeanie wonders “How do they do the installation?”
You mean, without a Bible to swear upon? I’d rather have someone’s own affirmation than “so help me God” as a preamble to an excuse for failure.
As for what’s on the currency, I think that is a curious and inappropriate remnant of the Cold War, but all the charming symbolism collected on such instruments is a means to an end which I have no problem employing.
In God we trust, wink wink, nudge nudge. You don’t take that seriously, do you?
Sisyphus on February 01 at 1:52 p.m.
This seems an apt video for this thread. Sometimes a person’s belief system is so ingrained that when they encounter something that shakes it to the core, they can’t help but be patronizing. http://youtu.be/tU7TdZSRcpo
Bubblehead on February 01 at 2:16 p.m.
I’d have a hard time voting for someone who didn’t believe they had a soul, so I guess an agnostic would be OK, an atheist not so much. On the other hand, if the only other choice were Ron Paul or Herman Cain or Sarah Palin or someone of that ilk and the atheist wasn’t a Truther, the atheist would probably get my vote.
oh3mily on February 01 at 2:20 p.m.
I think the real trouble is that Athiests get a bad rap, as some Christians do, because of the hardcore elements. I call myself an Atheist, but do so with reservations as there are many who automatically leap to the conclusion that I am anti-theist, and against freedom of people to practise their own religion as long as it doesn’t impede my own right to not practise one.
A short history lesson, as I am one who doesn’t believe “God” has a place on our currency or in our courts; “God” was not mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.
And, one of my favourite films, “Fried Green Tomatoes”, has a Pastor getting around his lying on the stand after swearing on the Bible by replacing it with a copy of Moby Dick (and thereby not wavering, as it wasn’t really what he had to swear on). But, really, it’s not the Bible people are held to - it’s the law, as it should be - so why does it matter if a President is Atheist, as long as there are no laws banishing religion (which I assure you, would never come to pass, as there are far too many blocks for that type of thing, even if he/she tried)?
greenlibertarian on February 01 at 2:51 p.m.
Pols don’t generally have to swear an oath of office upon the Bible, upon the Constitution, yes. Due to the Quakers, who were quite prominent at the time of the founding, one need not “swear” an oath either, one can “affirm” such.
Most of the atheists I’ve known were fine folks, occassionally there’s the “holier than thou” atheist who are rude and proclaim superiority to believers of all sorts. They’re pretty rare, thank God.
emanekaf on February 02 at 12:41 p.m.
@duroc @Norther @well anybody who said they would vote for an agnostic.
You are voting for an atheist in all but name.
Let me draw up an analogy for you. Imagine you are sitting on a jury in a case regarding a cereal murderer (yes a murderer of cereal, just go with it) and before the trial even starts, before any information is given, before you meet the killer or before you see the evidence and the pictures of the shattered cereal bowls, by some quirk you are asked to vote on whether or not the defendant is guilty.
If the jurors are doing their job right, they will unanimously vote “not guilty”. Because in a court of law. “I don’t know/I am not sure/not enough information” equals “Not guilty”. This is because the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and since the prosecution has not presented any evidence, they must vote “not guilty”.
The same basic principle applies to religious claims. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Never forget that when a positive claim is proposed (a claim that something is true or that something exists), the default position is always disbelief. An open mind will allow someone to entertain the claim, and enable the person to evaluate the evidence, but only when a claim is sufficiently supported by evidence, reason, or sound argument, is the belief justified.
So when you hear someone claim to be agnostic, or having the belief that their is not enough evidence provided on either side to support their claims, they are functionally atheist. If there is not enough evidence, or the evidence is not findable (which it is, god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) then the default position is disbelief. And disbelief in deities is what an atheist is.
duroc on February 02 at 12:58 p.m.
@emanekaf: I don’t find your argument convincing. There’s a big difference between an atheist and an agnostic. You might be well-served by reading some of T.H. Huxley’s work, since he was the originator of the term “agnostic.”
emanekaf on February 02 at 2:50 p.m.
@durac
I disagree with your claim that there is a big difference between an atheist and an agnostic. An agnostic (in my experience with those who have claimed to be agnostic) is a person who claims that there is not enough evidence to support atheism or theism, and thus beliefs in neither. An atheist believes that there are no gods. If you disagree with my definition, present a different one so we can figure out semantics.
But as I stated, the default position for any positive claim is disbelief. If there is not enough evidence to support the positive (theism) then by default the beilif shifts to the negative (atheism).
This is and always has been the cornerstone of scientific inquiry and the scientific method. There is no in between. There is only supported by evidence (belief) and not supported by evidence (disbelief).
So when an agnostic says there is no evidence either way, they are by default atheists (agnostic atheists rather then gnostic atheists, but atheists all the same). Because the burden of proof lies with the theists, and the theists have not convinced the agnostic. So in the court of science, the agnostic must vote “not guilty” and is thus, functionally at least, an atheist.