 |
|
|
|
 A voice vote to change the DNC party platform turned to chaos Wednesday night.
September 6th, 2012
03:24 PM ET
Conventions leave atheists asking: What political party represents me?By Dan Merica, CNN Washington (CNN) – This convention season has not been good for atheists. The word "God" was reinserted in the Democratic platform after it had been removed. A plan to raise atheist billboards in the convention cities was stymied by opponents. And though there were preachers and rabbis and other religious leaders opening and closing each day of each convention, there wasn’t an avowed atheist talking up unbelief on either convention’s speaking list. The political lockout has left many nonbelievers asking, “What political party represents me?” “We are deeply saddened by the exclusion of a large number of Americans by both parties,” said Teresa MacBain, a spokeswoman for the group American Atheists, in an interview on Thursday. “It amazes me that in modern-day America, so much prejudice still exists.” After word spread Wednesday that Democrats left God out of their platform, atheists rejoiced. “Truly amazing news,” wrote Loren Miller on Atheist Nexus, a popular atheist blog. “The Republicans remain in the firm grasp of right-wing Christian religiosity, and I really don't know what it's going to take to free them from it.” But the convention committee immediately received huge pressure get God back in the platform. Even President Obama, according to CNN reporting, said, “Why on earth would that have been taken out?” when he first heard of the omission. In an awkward session that required three voice votes on the convention floor, the Democrats opted to add “God” back to the platform. For atheists, the Democrats were seen to be taking away a hard-fought victory. “We had 24 hours of joy as we felt (that) finally our government values all people,” said MacBain. “But that was short-lived. The vote last night angered many atheists and left them feeling excluded once again.” Online, atheist websites and Facebook pages went from upbeat to downcast as news spread of the platform revision. “Obama was the first president to acknowledge non believers,” Mark Musante wrote on the American Atheists’ Facebook page. “I wish he would stick to his guns.” Musante was referring to Obama’s 2009 inauguration speech, when the president said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” Beverly Sitherwood, on the Friendly Atheist blog Facebook page, accused the Democrats of “Pandering for power.” Some atheist leaders used the platform defeat as a rallying call. “I guess a tiny step was too much to ask for,” David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, told CNN. “This was a clear message to the 16% of the voting population - we don’t count. Well, guess what, Dems - we do. And we vote.” Silverman says that 16% of the voting public identify as nonbelievers. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 12% of the electorate in 2008 was made up of people with no religious affiliation, though experts say the number of avowed atheists is much smaller. While acknowledging atheists, Obama has given platforms to high-profile religious leaders, including Rick Warren, a megachurch pastor who prayed at his inauguration, and Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who is giving the final prayer of the convention on Thursday night. American Atheists’ plans to raise billboards ridiculing the presidential candidates’ faith ended in failure. After the group put up billboards in Charlotte, North Carolina, the site of the Democratic National Convention, last month, it quickly removed them due to “physical threats to not only our staff, but the billboard company as well.” American Atheists had also planned on a billboard in Tampa, Florida, to coincide with the Republican National Convention there. But American Atheists said that all the billboard companies in Tampa rejected a sign taking aim at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Perhaps because of the Republican Party’s ties to conservative Christianity, atheists tend to be Democrats. According to a 2012 Pew study, 71% of Americans who identified as atheist were Democrats. “The Republicans who spoke at the RNC seemed more like televangelists than politicians,” MacBain said. “The message was clear from the RNC: Get God, or get out.” The Republican’s 2012 platform mentions God 12 times, many of which describe the “God-given” rights that the Republican Party says are inherent to the American idea. Though most atheist groups claim that there are closeted atheists serving as representatives and senators, only one has come out as such. In September 2007, Rep. Pete Stark, Democrat of California, affirmed his atheism in a speech at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. soundoff (3,922 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next »
Next entry »Catholic bishop convicted of shielding priest
« Previous entryDems: God never left our party
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Check this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4tTMMNTisBM#!
We Are at War
Exploiting 9/11 for the Benefit of a Few.
By Johnny Barber
Who benefits from the War on Terror and who benefits when America threatens war?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32415.htm
The word atheist can be defined by one word: atheist = MORON. That is all.
"Anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy tale that I do is a fool" – Psalm 14:1
Actually, studies show that atheists have significantly higher intelligence levels than cross clutchers. Certainly the much better writing skills of the atheists on this blog bear that out. So, Julie, what is your reasoning for calling us morons?
No, I think your comment speaks for itself as to what a good definition of moron is.
Julie = Cvnt. That's it.
KRHODES
"I exist don't I? The universe exist and everything in it right? Well it must have been caused by something greater than itself right? That cause is God...what else would it be...nothing?"
Who or what created your "god"? Something greater than your alleged "god" had to exist before in order to create it!
Memo to all atheists: There is a God. Just because you haven't seen empirical evidence, doesn't make it not true. It's awesome that you're "thinking for yourself" (though you're just as influenced by others as believers are) but that doesn't make you right. What's gonna happen when you find that you've been wrong the whole time? I PROMISE you it's gonna happen.
Based on WHAT EVIDENCE?! You cannot just accuse the entire world of "sin" and "eternal punishment" just because YOU are afraid to DIE! DOLT!
Poops, you're full of horse feathers. There are no leprechauns, no unicorns, no Tooth Fairy, no....well, you see what I mean. BTW the earth isn't flat and you can't repeal the law of gravity. It's time for you to smarten up and leave your mythical, magical God behind.
What if you find out you picked the wrong god ? Thor won't be pleased
There isn't a whit of evidence for god, oopsie. Just because some old dude in fancy robes in a fancy building reading from a book of ancient fables tells you there is a god just ain't evidence. If you want to wear out your pants groveling on your knees worshipping some imaginary god, that's your business. All I can do is watch in disbelief.
Ooooh, A PROMISE.
@LENDOG
"If there where no god there would be no atheists"
G.K. Chesterton
"No one ever claimed 'There is no god' until someone first claimed 'There is a god.'"
-G. Zeus Kreiszchte
LENDOG
"By using the prefix "a" one is saying "without or not" when put in front of the root word. By doing this to the word thiest, one is implying that they are without a deity. By acknowledging that they are without something that is claimed to be, they admit to the existance of what is claimed, but reject it."
So, LENDOG, you are an a-FlyingSpaghettiMonster-ist because I claim there is one and yet you reject this claim? And because you reject this claim you are therefore admitting its existence?! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By this logic, nothing and everything are real simultaneously! No proof necessary! Just claim it and it must be so!
If the democratic party is going to embrace religion we should drop our support for them.
I second that! ... Also: ... ANY church that starts to talk/preach/advocate/advice about political issues should lose their TAX exemption status.
Get real. That's exactly why they put "god" back in the platform. They have to get votes from everybody. Intellectuals, morons, and everyone inbetween. Both parties do the same thing.
Neither political party represents me, I don't say that because I'm an atheist, I say that because I am a decent and honest man while both the Democrats and Republicans are parties which are totally corrupt.
The Republican Party's efforts to discredit and disenfranchise Ron Paul was bad enough, but when they altered their bylaws to forbid future grassroot efforts, it was obvious how much they don't want real input from citizens.
Likewise, the Democrat's recent "teleprompter fiasco" where a delegate vote was blatantly ignored in order to conform to the desired party line just shows that neither party cares about average americans.
They don't want representative governmnet. They want to maintain power for the status quo.
I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
By picking on one or two items you don't like, prevents you from voting, you fall in the catagory of not voting. Which means you have no right to complain.
They didn't say they weren't voting; they said they were voting for Gary Johnson. Or does that not qualify as a real vote in your worldview?
When I do finally get to meet this god you worship face to face- if it does exist – it will have just as much of a chance of surviving the encounter as I do of surviving my encounter with this world it supposedly created. Namely: ZERO.
Awww. Left out yet again. Not to worry. We'll get over it.
THANK GOD I'M AN ATHEIST !!!!!!!
Take heart atheists-the Dems don't believe in God, they just did that because of the backlash-they will do anything for a vote.
Have you conducted a poll? What percentage of Dems don't believe in god?
And Republikkans won't do just anything for a vote?
I do believe in god. I just also happen to believe that it's a complete and total criminal jerkwad. Am I still an atheist?
Somewhat like Romney embracing Pat Robitson, that kook who blames hurricans on the gay people
Poor babies..............
If there were no lemurs there would be no giant space bats.
truth be told if no one beleived in God then no one wold beleive in the after life. as such, what would be the compulsion to live a good a moral life? why not just do whatever you want since in the end its just nothingness. no consiousness. no anything. so why not just live for your own selfish gradification. most atheist will not do this even though they claim to not belive in God. in reality most of them agnostic in the back of their minds, not knowing what God is exactly but acknowledging even in only a small way that he exist to some degree. no God? right. until their lives are threatened and they're facing death. "Oh God" is the first thing from their mouths.
My first words would be "chris is so retarded he doesn't even capitalize the first letter in his name".
And he can't spell believe, nor capitalize the first word in his sentences. And apparently he claims to be able to read minds.
The way I see it, some things are inherently right and some things are inherently wrong. Period. Not because my imaginary friend in the sky says so, and not because I will be rewarded or punished after death. I don't understand why religious people think they have a lock on living a good life, being honest, doing the right thing and treating people with kindness and respect.
And the retard doesn't know how to spell graTification!
I have a compulsion to live a moral life Chris. But it has nothing to do with an "afterlife" (an oddly contradictory term at best). It has to do with my desire to cooperate with others, and keep my family and friends safe, and happy, and well taken care of.
Are Christians really that self-absorbed that they think their afterlife is the only complelling reason to be a good person? Are you that uncontrollable that you would go completely ape sht if there were no afterlife? What's the matter with you?
Furthermore, retard, morals do not come from any alleged "god." They come from life experience, empathy, the ability for man to extrapolate situations and imagine his own actions coming back to haunt him if acted out by a third party on him. Gee, I wouldn't want someone murdering me, so I guess I'd better not make anyone feel like their life is threatened. Gee I wouldn't want anyone r@ping my wife or enticing her into an affair, so I had better not do such things to other people's wives. The atheist has such morals WITHOUT "GOD!"
But we must allow for the people that can't think that way. Maybe they're so weak minded and lacking in common sense that they need religion to help control their lives. This was probably way more true in the middle ages than it is now, but the legacy lives on.
All the bad things in the world come from people behaving like that. Why would I want to add to it? If I help others, and they help me, we can achieve the paradise that you imagine you'll get if you just wait and pray. This world is all we have. I should make it better.
O.K so may be I am different, but if a atheist does post a amusing comment on here I can't help but reply (need to get a grip on impulse control) but did anyone else think this was at least a little bit funny? b4bigbang
Do you purchase ANGEL's product often?
"... post AN amusing..."
And "an atheist", not "a atheist"
"maybe", not "may be".
I think Takawalk meant "might could be" instead of "may be."
Hard to tell, isn't it?
"If there where no god there would be no atheists"
G.K. Chesterton
I still don't get this one.
If there were no Santa Claus would there be no adults?
What do you mean, "if there where (sic) no god"? There's no "if" to it. So your statement is a non-statement.
I"m sure Chesterson must have been a very clever man, but his quote makes no logical sense. His pen must have slipped when he wrote that pithy quote.
What he probably really meant (and what is actually true) is, that if there were no believers in god, then there would be no atheists.
Silly statement. The condition of no gods prevails. Yet there are atheists. Why? Because the delusion that there is at least one god is very common and the rest of us want to distinguish ourselves from the ones who have it. If it were less common we would only need a term for the ones who have it.
Actually, there is no god, therefore there are atheists
By using the prefix "a" one is saying "without or not" when put in front of the root word. By doing this to the word thiest, one is implying that they are without a deity. By acknowledging that they are without something that is claimed to be, they admit to the existance of what is claimed, but reject it. Also 'if' can be used many ways. It usally is used in a way of uncertainty, however it can be used to counter uncertainty. Being uncertain doesn't mean that whatever one is uncertain about isn't true, they are just not sure. In this case it is used to counter uncertainty. An atheist has just as much a problem proving that there is no god as a religious person has proving there is one!
@LENDOG
Fortunately, the burden of proof is actually on the person asserting there is a god, and atheism isn't the assertion that there is no god/gods.
If there were no humans, there would be no gods.
Really "atheist" is not a term we choose for ourselves. I think most atheist think of ourselves as realists. When looked at from that perspective, the quote accurately represents the lunacy behind it. "If there were no gods, there would be no realists."
LENDOG,
a + theism "implying that they are without a deity"
No, it means without a **belief** in a deity. "ist" and "ism" denote belief.
hawaiiguest
"@LENDOG Fortunately, the burden of proof is actually on the person asserting there is a god, and atheism isn't the assertion that there is no god/gods."
No...unless atheism is the default position which it is not or the atheist is uncritical in their evaluation. What makes you think there is no God?
Good quote. Strange that you don't find anybody screaming against Santa Claus as loudly as there are people screaming against God. This ought to be a loud indicator of His existence. Everybody knows deep down that God exists. At the very least, the basics of a discussion like this can only come about via a belief in God. If there were no God of the Bible, then the very laws of logic cannot exist. Atheism has no basis upon which to instate an origin of such unchanging laws, nor does it have a basis upon which we may trust the observations of our five senses. In order to trust scientific research, you must rely on biblical principles which state that our senses have been created by a reliable Being. Please watch this before commenting, as I cannot elaborate here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/?s=ultimate+proof
When was the last time some azzhole tried to use his beliefs in Santa to abrogate the rights of others?
Let me know when you figure out how to tie your shoes.
KRHODES,
The default stance when something can neither be proved nor disproved is to withhold belief.... "a-theism" = without belief in a god or gods.
@KRHODES
Well since you used the capital G, it will probably be safe to assume you're talking about the god of the bible. If that's the case, then that god is not only logically inconsistent, but there is also no evidence for that god, just like any other god that has been proposed.
So there is not enough "evidence" then. Okay...what would be the required amount since you "claim" there is not enough evidence to believe in God? Hows come billions of folks have the proper amount yet a small percentage of humanity does not believe in God? I think the burden would be on you considering you are claiming there is not enough evidence to believe in God.
Nonsense. The burden is on you to prove something exists. One cannot prove that something does not exist.
You ought to know that.
A Frayed Knot
KRHODES,
"The default stance when something can neither be proved nor disproved is to withhold belief.... "a-theism" = without belief in a god or gods."
So when we don't have enough evidence which would be certainly subjective then we should err on the negative side? Then you must also be thinking there is not enough evidence?
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
"Nonsense. The burden is on you to prove something exists. One cannot prove that something does not exist.
You ought to know that."
The adults are discussing this right know.
Of course one would err on the negative side. If one suspects there are fairies in the garden, but there is no evidence to support any such belief, one would remain skeptical until evidence is presented.
Adults would know that the burden of proof is on the claimant, dumb sh!t.
@KRHODES
Since you are burdoned with the task of proving something like god exists, why don't you tell us what proved it for you (and why you haven't submitted this to the top science journals for review)?
I don't believe there's a leprechaun orbiting Saturn.
Can you prove me wrong?
KRHODES,
" you "claim" there is not enough evidence to believe in God? Hows come billions of folks have the proper amount"
Would you care to take a guess as to how many billions of folks have believed in the Hindu pantheon of gods over these past 7000 years? Have you proved that their gods do not exist?
Thousands of people believing in something for which there is no evidence, only indicates what percentage of people can be successfully indoctrinated in tradition, belief, and religious dogma.
The fact that the percentage is large, has no bearing on whether or not what they believe actually exists.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
I don't believe there's a leprechaun orbiting Saturn.
Can you prove me wrong?
Well a leprechaun would be a material and dependent being wouldn't it? Certainly if such a thing existed then we would have proof of such right?
A Frayed Knot
KRHODES,
" you "claim" there is not enough evidence to believe in God? Hows come billions of folks have the proper amount"
"Would you care to take a guess as to how many billions of folks have believed in the Hindu pantheon of gods over these past 7000 years? Have you proved that their gods do not exist?"
Can you name one and explain how it would be the creater of the universe and everything in it?
OOO
@KRHODES
"Since you are burdoned with the task of proving something like god exists, why don't you tell us what proved it for you (and why you haven't submitted this to the top science journals for review)?"
I exist don't I? The universe exist and everything in it right? Well it must have been caused by something greater than itself right? That cause is God...what else would it be...nothing?
"Well a leprechaun would be a material and dependent being wouldn't it?"
And your suppositions about the qualities of a leprechaun are based on what, exactly?
"Certainly if such a thing existed then we would have proof of such right?"
And if such a thing as god existed, then we would have proof of such right?
Ignoring your execrable punctuation, there's no difference between the belief a leprechaun is orbiting Saturn and the belief that there's a god.
Oh, so, Krhodes, just because we don't know now and may not ever know what caused the universe to exist, it "must" have been GAWD? Says who? You? Based on what? Nothing–except the fact that you don't know.
Sorry. Not proof.
@KRHODES,
Wrong, again. The burden of proof, such as it is when dealing with make-believe, is on the person making the claim, re: the existence of god(s) and other mythological beings, talking wolves, pigs that vary in preference of building materials, etc. The default position is that those things do not exist. Or do you have time to debate the existence of pixies in my garden? How many other imaginary beings would you like to disprove?
@KRHODES
My proof that god doesn't exist is exactly the same as my proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.... none.
Your proof that god exists is exactly the same as your proof that the tooth fairy exists.... none.
Your god = tooth fairy.
OOO
@KRHODES
"My proof that god doesn't exist is exactly the same as my proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.... none.
Your proof that god exists is exactly the same as your proof that the tooth fairy exists.... none.
Your god = tooth fairy."
Wow...what an intellect...i better give up now.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
"Well a leprechaun would be a material and dependent being wouldn't it?"
And your suppositions about the qualities of a leprechaun are based on what, exactly?
"Certainly if such a thing existed then we would have proof of such right?"
And if such a thing as god existed, then we would have proof of such right?
"Ignoring your execrable punctuation, there's no difference between the belief a leprechaun is orbiting Saturn and the belief that there's a god."
Oh...my puctuation...you win...your to good at this for me. That is the problem with debating atheist...there is no point arguing with nonsensical people.
@KRHODES
You're going to go with argument ad populum? Really?
The problem, KRHODES is that your god would have to be a "material and dependent being", since by the dogma of your religion, your deity has the capability to physically affect objects in our plane of reality. He can get Susan a raise, and pull Billy out of pond and save him from drowning, and so forth.
In order to make these changes to our physical universe, he would have to be detectable. I have my 10% tithe ready to drop into the collection plate of the closest church, as soon as I see evidence of that interface that this deity necessarily enjoys with the universe I live in.
@KRHODES
Well, since you believe you have enough evidence, would you like to present something?
@KRHODES you do realize how many logical fallacies you have committed right?
Figures. When Krhodes has no response to a question, he/she/it chooses to go the route of pretending to be quite indignant, thereby avoiding any need to answer with a rebuttal.
Poor thing.
KRHODES:
"Oh...my puctuation...you win...your to good at this for me. That is the problem with debating atheist...there is no point arguing with nonsensical people."
No, it's PUNCTUATION
And its also GRAMMAR....as in "you're too good at this for me!" (contraction YOU + ARE = YOU'RE.... and TOO which indicates surplus and which is differentiable from TWO and TO)
"That is the problem with debating atheist" (Object/verb agreement: You do not make the object singular when you are debating more than one atheist.)
.....
....
'.B'H
JERUSALEM: ISRAEL
----------
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=947by3X6_RU
...>
Burn Israel before the world burns.
The bible is like a "Nigerian Email" from the bronze-age.
Thread won.
+1 Internets!
Dam you. I just got looks from others in the office for laughing out loud! What an excellent comparison!
Communism would be the party for athiests. Karl Marx called religion the opium of the people.
That would only follow if all atheists were extreme left-wing liberals. But there also happen to be intelligent conservatives out there, who have also learned to think for themselves So your claim makes no sense.
Karl Marx was totally correct. The fact that he was a commie has nothing to do with it.
And he was right. What's your point?
Hitler liked donuts. Doesn't make donuts bad.
They don't yet, there are not enough of us. It will take at least a few decades before atheists become a dominant force. None the less it will happen as it is fastest growing "religious category" and organized religions are dying the slow death of attrition. Many of kids where I live attend a local catholic school, I am amazed at how many describe themselves as atheists, especially those with the most religious parents. Thankfully there is the internet to fill in the fact gap left from bible school and classes. It seems to be helping these kids.
I totally agree. The Internet definitely is a big factor. Kids are very much sharper nowadays and don't need the centuries-old bible mythology anymore. Once the current negative stigma associated with calling oneself an atheist fades, there will be an avalanche of "coming out".
Athy, I recommend this video by the famous brain surgeon Ben Carson, relating to your comment regarding children being smarter due to the Internet: http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=9002
Ohhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........flushhhhhhhhhhhhhh......OOOOhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm. The meaning of life- now move on.