Obama is meeting with 30 religious leaders as we speak

[NotThisTime]

Too bad Billy Graham probably isn't among them as he is in Chicago...

[maxsolomon]

1. when is the meeting with atheist leaders?

oh, right, we don't count.

[wyldwolf]

2. Or Agnostic ones. I'm not sure if he has or not...

[whistler162]

25. Do agnostics really have leaders

or are they just unsure of who their leaders are?

[NotThisTime]

38. I'm agnostic, I have no leader, but I don't hold it against those who do or might

To each their own....

[Cha]

42. I'm not religious but Obama is the one

I want to be my leader.

[SwampG8r]

65. i will believe in agnostics when i see one

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Atheists don't need leaders.

On account of us not being a religion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Atheism is a religion, it's just not a very well organized one

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Atheism is not a religion.

And the idea of organizing it strikes me as silly.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Sure it is. Atheists BELIEVE that there is no god

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. I BELIEVE I'm going to have a BLT sandwich for lunch.

Is that a religion too?

[Abacus]

17. No, that is provable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. OK, prove it.

Prove I just had a BLT sandwich for lunch.

[KittyWampus]

21. your poop probably would be evidence

just saying

[JuniperLea]

51. Literally LOL here!

:rofl:

[Andrea]

41. To some of us, it is

I take my sandwich choices very seriously, and hold them dear.

[scheming daemons]

20. Um... "Theism" = Religious belief. Put an "A" in front of it and it means ABSENCE of such....

Just like ASEXUAL means the ABSENCE of sex.



Theist is a person who believes in a god.

Atheist is a person who does NOT believe in a god. The ABSENCE of belief is not a belief.



Words means things.

[KittyWampus]

23. a-sexual still refers to genitalia. Lack of genitalia is still a notable characteristic.

especially when referring to species that require genitalia to procreate.

[Abacus]

28. Actually, an atheist disbelieves in god(s)

"The ABSENCE of belief is not a belief." But the belief of absence IS belief.

[gcomeau]

31. An atheist doesn't belive in gods.

Those who disbelieve in gods are a subset of the group, not the entire thing.

[Abacus]

34. Atheism is the subset;

unless we're rewriting definitions, atheists necessarily disbelieve in god, but don't take my word for it...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Your superset would be comprised of agnostics and atheists -- the act of disbelief is what separates the two.

[gcomeau]

46. Oh boy...

...you're one of those people who think agnostics are the ones who get asked "Do you believe in God" and answer "Ummm, I don't know" aren't you?

Those aren't agnostics, those are either people being asked the question for the very first time who have never ever given it any thought before and thus need a minute to figure out the answer... or people in need of either english lessons or psychological help.

Agnostics are people who believe it is impossible to KNOW whether or not a god exists due to the very nature of such an entity. They can still either not believe Or believe in such an entity. I know agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. What agnosticism is not is some kind of third distinct alternative to either atheism or theism. You are either a theist, or you are an atheist. It's a binary solution set. You either do or do not possess the belief that a deity exists.

I love it when I see someone asked if they're an atheist or a theist and they answer "neither, I'm an agnostic". It makes as much sense as answering "neither, I'm an accountant".

[Abacus]

58. No,

I'm one of those people that thinks that god is not testable and cannot be proven or disproven and I tend to keep my beliefs consistent with what I "know".

This becomes an uninteresting argument in semantics. In english, "atheism" predates "theism" and is a disbelief of god, but there is apparently a modern movement to change the meaning to "absence of belief in deities". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) All atheists I've encountered have proclaimed disbelief. In english, your beef should lie with the definition of "theism", which, for consistency should be "a lack of disbelief in god". Whatever; a battle over terms does not interest me. My original point was that people who disbelieve in god have more ideological similarities with than differences from those who believe.

And thanks for the personal attack, I guess.

Edit: The original greek; the first was the original meaning, the second became the accepted meaning in the 5th century.

ἄθεος m., ἄθεος f., ἄθεον n.; second declension; (atheos)

1. Without God
2. Denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%82

[gcomeau]

68. That makes no sense...

In english, your beef should lie with the definition of "theism", which, for consistency should be "a lack of disbelief in god".

What in the world is consistent about that? The "lack" in the definition of atheism comes from the "a" modifier applied to "theism". You just threw a double negative into the definition of theism for no apparent reason whatsoever. Theism defines the possession of a specific belief, clear and simple.

Jumping back to the statement before that...

I'm one of those people that thinks that god is not testable and cannot be proven or disproven and I tend to keep my beliefs consistent with what I "know".
Fine... so that tells me you're an agnostic but says nothing about whether you're atheist or theist. What exactly DO you consider to be "consistent" with what you know on the subject of a deity existing? Do you believe it to be the case or not?

[Abacus]

77. Let's try it this way

You're looking at the structure of the word and arguing for what it should mean. I'm looking at the etymology and definition to state what it does mean.

As I said in my previous post, there is a "movement" to rewrite the definition to be consistent with your analysis. Today's definition of atheism, a definition proposing active disbelief and in use for the past 1500 years, would be more accurately called "antitheism". "a-", meaning without, should be replaced with "anti-", meaning against, for the current definition to be consistent.

Fine... so that tells me you're an agnostic but says nothing about whether you're atheist or theist. What exactly DO you consider to be "consistent" with what you know on the subject of a deity existing? Do you believe it to be the case or not?

By your definition, I would be atheist; by Webster's definition, I would be neither.

[lastliberalintexas]

59. That's just one subset of agnosticism

Some agnostics believe we can't know, some believe that a deity exists but we can't prove it and have no idea of how it would like us to live (much like most Deists), some also believe it's irrelevant to know. Either way, Agnosticism is a distinct "belief" subset on its own. The question of whether a deity exists or not is not binary, although many (esp atheists for some reason) seem to think it is. I have actually known more atheists who have a problem with me being an agnostic than theists. Anecdotal, I know, but still...


For the record, I am an agnostic, neither a theist nor an atheist. I do not believe that a deity exists, nor do I disbelieve that 10 deities exist. In fact, the existence of a deity or deities is wholly and completely irrelevant to my life and the way I choose to live it. I think that subset is called a Nontheist Agnostic, but I don't care enough to look it up. Typical agnostic. :)

[gcomeau]

70. You don't say how...

Some agnostics believe we can't know, some believe that a deity exists but we can't prove it and have no idea of how it would like us to live (much like most Deists)

How are those two description different? Both describe agnosticism sure enough, but they both said basically the same thing.

some also believe it's irrelevant to know

Which they're entirely entitled to believe but which isn't actually relevant to classifying them as agnostics or not...

Either way, Agnosticism is a distinct "belief" subset on its own.

Yeah... I knew that. Specifically, it's the distinct subset of people with the belief that you cannot know whether or not God exists. I'm pretty sure I was fairly clear on that score. It's just not distinct FROM atheism and theism.

And for the record I don't have any problem with you being an agnostic... I'M an agnostic. I have a problem with people who don't understand what the word means and present it as a third distinct option from theism and atheism when it isn't, which you just did. "I am an agnostic, neither a theist nor an atheist."... You could have made just as much sense saying "I am a person who believes purple is the best color, neither a theist nor an atheist." Go ahead and believe purple is awesome, but that's not actually a third alternative to atheism and theism... and neither is agnosticism.

[lastliberalintexas]

72. You seem more irate than this subject merits, but ok

The agnostics who believe we can't know if a deity exist believe that it is beyond the comprehension of a human to know, ie, we do not have the ability or mental acumen to know whether a god exists. That is different from agnostics who believe that we have such a capability, but that we don't have the proof or evidence one way or the other.

The irrelevacy belief is just a different subset of agnostics, and can include those who also do not believe that we humans can know or those who believe we can but don't. There's a name for this group, but I can't remember what it is. The defining element for this subset, regardless of any belief one way or the other in the existence of a deity or in humankind's ability to comprehend such existence, is that the deity's existence is immaterial to our lives.


"Specifically, it's the distinct subset of people with the belief that you cannot know whether or not God exists."

This is incorrect, since that does not actually describe all agnostics. The one consistent thread in agnosticism is simply that we do not know whether a deity exists, but that is different from whether we CAN know if a deity exists.

[gcomeau]

75. I've had this discussion a LOT, it wears on you.

This is incorrect, since that does not actually describe all agnostics. The one consistent thread in agnosticism is simply that we do not know whether a deity exists, but that is different from whether we CAN know if a deity exists.

Yes, that is different. One is agnosticism and one isn't. Responding "I don't know if God exists"... while a perfectly valid answer to the question "does God exist?"... does not make you an agnostic. It's just a statement about your perceived possession or lack of one single piece of information, it doesn't describe a philosophical position or belief. It isn't an "ism" at all. Saying someone subscribes to agnosticism because they don't know if God exists or not is like saying if you ask me where your cousin Tom is and I answer "I don't know" I'm an adherent to the philosophy of Atomgeoism... the deep and profound philosophical belief that I have no freaking idea where your cousin is.

That's not a philosophy, it's a random piece of trivia. If just plain not knowing something was a philosophy we'd be over-run with philosophers.

Agnosticism does not address if you do know a God exists, it addresses if you believe that you can know. That's it.

[scheming daemons]

55. Disbelief is different from lack of belief.

Atheism is the absence of belief... the default position.


Just like 0 degrees kelvin is the lack of any atom movement at all (absolute zero).



I am atheist, not because I "disbelieve" in god.... but because I have no beliefs at all with respect to the supernatural.


It's the equivalent of asking me if I believe in the invisible pink fire breathing dragon in your garage.

[gcomeau]

26. Please be joking.

First of all, atheists do not believe a God exists, which is slightly different phrasing than you used.

Second of all, even accepting your phrasing, if that constitutes a religion, then I am a member of like 15 billion religions.

I BELIVE there are no gremlins who steal individual socks out of my clothes dryer(despite the evidence that something is responsible for my constantly vanishing socks!) There's religion number 1 that I'm a member of...

I BELIEVE there are no tiny microscopic unicorn living in the front left pocket of my jeans. There's religion number 2 that I'm a member of...

I BELIEVE there are no magical invisible fairies flying through space pushing all the planets and such around in a manner that just kind of looks like they're following orbital trajectories due to gravity and such. There's religion number 3 that I'm a member of...

Should I continue the list? How many religions are YOU in?

[weezie1317]

27. No, atheism is a faith or belief. Religion is the organized institution - there's none for atheism.

[Zhade]

61. No, we don't. You're wrong - you're not in our heads and do not know our minds better than WE do.

We lack belief in gods due to the lack of evidence for them.

[comrade snarky]

74. Ummm no.

I lack the property of belief, a-theist as in without theism.

Not holding a belief in a god is not the same thing as believing there isn't a god. It can seem like a slight difference from the outside but then so is the difference between the British and Welsh.

Screw that one up in wrong Welsh pub and you eat your own teeth. :-)

[mathewsleep]

36. atheism is to religion as black is to color.

black isn't a color! it's a shade. it's the lack of color, and thus, not one.

[Abacus]

13. I've never noticed a difference.

[mamalone]

29. Who said you don't count?

I don't think I got that memo;)

[TBF]

33. We don't need leaders because we can speak and think for ourselves. :)

[Zhade]

60. Well, to be fair, we don't really HAVE leaders, since we lack a religion or dogma.

NT!

[rug]

3. Nothing good can come of this.

[LSparkle]

5. Maybe he's just shopping for a new church/minister

:sarcasm:

[Symarip]

6. He needs to meet with this guy:

Hail! Raptor Jesus!

(sorry, couldn't help myself)

[SwampG8r]

66. i like little baby raptor jesus better

hes so cute in that little manger

[cbc5g]

7. I'm an atheist and I think he should meet with Billy Graham

Why? Because there are millions of ignorant Christians in this country and our party has to appeal to them or the RW will scare them into voting for McBush.

[NotThisTime]

39. Exactly the truth... not to mention he actually has some religious beliefs, I don't hold that

against anyone... And, if you can reach across the spectrum to this group of people, why not? Just because we're not RW'ers doesn't mean many Dem's don't believe in something....

[Hoof Hearted]

48. So you think Obama should pander to millions of ignorant Christians then

Fascinating.

[dems_rightnow]

50. Given the number of Christians....

.... that will vote, yes. I think it would be helpful if some of them voted for him.

[NotThisTime]

56. No, I think he should talk to them, don't change his policy, just talk to them, like adults in a

room & if they get it, they get it, and if they don't, they don't... but there is no harm in explaining yourself and fielding questions, it would be weak to do otherwise.

[PoliticalAmazon]

8. Sun Yung Moon better not be one of them. n/t

[newmajority]

9. I didn't realize Billy Graham was healthy enough to be on tour

I thought he was getting pretty close to "God calling him home". Which is kinda sad, because whatever you think of the man, his ministry is far better off in his hands than it will be in the hands of his neocon son, Franklin Graham.

[Benhurst]

12. King Tut toured a number of U.S. cities, so I guess Graham's tour should come as no surprise.

[Forkboy]

10. Well, no one is perfect.

[blogslut]

18. Will he meet with BoB?

[BklynChick]

22. as much as I hate religion, this is something good that Obama brings to the table. The Republicans

have always owned the religion conversation and it's about time we took it back, and take the moral high ground in terms of what religion really should be.

[mamalone]

30. Well said!

[MarjorieG]

47. Agreed. As organizer, part of Trinity, he understands that part of the whole, and value voter.

Still understands the separation between church and state, the Constitution.

Obama is independent in all aspects of policy, especially important with such a bad economy and so much to do. Deft touch on regulation, global, where to stimulate.

Love it.

[lastliberalintexas]

62. Except that he, just like right wing loonies, uses his religious beliefs as barometers

of certain public policy. Obama has admitted that his views of gay marriage are based on his religion, and he trusts women to prayerfully consider abortion. He is given a pass by his supporters for comments that aren't that different from those of Scalia.

He'll get my vote, and I know I am in a distinct minority in this country. But his religiosity was what initially drove me away from his campaign, especially disconcerting after the revival like tour of South Carolina and the McClurkin fiasco. I recognize I have no option at this point, but it isn't something I'll be happy to overlook.

[shadowknows69]

24. Fuck me running, I don't think a Presidential candidate should even be allowed to meet with clergy

Is this a well rounded group of leaders or just 30 versions of Xtianity?

[muryan]

32. He's reaching out for voters

I dont have a problem with it. There are many christians who believe in the democrats social agendas on poverty, and human rights. They just get drowned out by the anti-choice and xenophobic lunatics who in this election are not happy with McCain.

[Thrill]

35. You would be surprised how much influence some of these people can have in a communtiy

[OzarkDem]

37. Is he going for the evangelicals?

Not sure how you stand for Democratic Party ideals and appease that bunch, too.

[NotThisTime]

40. I don't think he's trying to appease that group (at all),just having an introduction meeting I guess

[Hoof Hearted]

49. Pander, I believe, is the word you are looking for.

[NotThisTime]

57. I believe the word is "discuss" his policies and how they may fit into some religious groups if they

don't focus on two main issues and ignore the rest....

[GarbagemanLB]

43. Believe it or not there is a segment of evangelicals that sees importance in combatting poverty,

global warming, and other progressive ideals. The 'evangelical' base is not one monolithic group that cares only about abortion and gay marriage.

[wileedog]

44. And heck, even the Pope is against Iraq

Invading sovereign nations and slaughtering their people in the name of 'Democracy' is no more 'Christian' than abortion is.

Doesn't hurt to meet and see if there is common ground.

[PresidentObama]

45. That's right, say fuck you to a big voting block just because you don't see eye to eye on everything

[Lilith Velkor]

54. Just because they want me and most of my friends dead, or worse-than?

Color me spiteful, but FUCK THEM.

[SwampG8r]

67. i think if you

sat down and answered all the questions like this

"well in Mark Jesus says this about the handicapped"and then quote jesus

jesus is a progressive

[DangerousRhythm]

73. Atheist here, but yes...

:rofl:

[SwampG8r]

76. the best way to silence those who "speak"for jesus

is to let jesus speak for himself

[Alter Ego]

78. Talking to them != pandering to them or appeasing them.

The man is allowed to talk to what will most likely be his staunch opposition--but if he can channel some of that Huckabee charm he might just bedevil them into thinking "You know, I can't stand what he stands for--but gosh darn it, he's just so damn likable!" They may not vote for him (abortion, birth control, gay rights...Obama's pretty intransigent on those issues) but maybe they won't hate him quite as much.

[anonymous171]

52. Let's steal their base. McCain does not appeal to them at all.

Obama is trying to get the next generation of Evangelicals to vote democratic. He's trying to change the map so that future dems will have a chance.

[madrchsod]

53. who are they?

not all the clergy in the united states are whack jobs... there are really good clergy that do really good things ...amazing is`t it?

[eleny]

63. I wish he could tell them that he's going to shut off the swag spigot W gave them

[JohnnyCougar]

64. Some of the comments on this thread are alarming.

I think some people don't realize how many religious people use religion to push progressive beliefs. Who cares why these people are doing it. We're all on the same team, for christssakes.

[lastliberalintexas]

69. No, we're not

I really do not care what someone's religion tells them to do in their personal life. If their goddess tells them to love one another, volunteer at the local library, drive for meals on wheels and pay 20% of their salaries to the food bank, then good for them. If their god tells them to hate others, live isolated so as to be in the world but not of it, abstain from attending public school, and hate the poor, then good for them. I have no problem with people doing that in their own lives.

What does bother me, whether from the left or right, is when someone bases their belief in how *public* policy should be implemented on their *personal* religious belief. Single payer healthcare and easy access to educational facilities should be in place in this country not because it is the "moral" thing to do, but because it makes the most sense for a developed country since a healthy, educated populace is more content, more stable, more productive, and more enduring. It is the *logical* thing to do, which is all that should matter as far as public policy is concerned in a secular government.

What someone wants to do in their own life, how they want to personally live and what beliefs they base their personal lives on are none of my business. To each his own. But I'll be damned if I want someone's religious beliefs determining public policy, for bad or even for good.

[Zhade]

71. Hear, hear! Secularism works - indeed, it's the only approach to that does!

NT!