<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Anyone but the godless</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Moller</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-377088</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Moller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-377088</guid>
		<description>A mathematician's definition of an agnostic:  Someone who has concluded that the probability of the existence of an entity that exhibits characteristics that may be described as "god-like" is negligibly small.  And an indifferent agnostic is someone who doesn't care one way or the other.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A mathematician&#8217;s definition of an agnostic:  Someone who has concluded that the probability of the existence of an entity that exhibits characteristics that may be described as &#8220;god-like&#8221; is negligibly small.  And an indifferent agnostic is someone who doesn&#8217;t care one way or the other.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Aqui</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376695</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Aqui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376695</guid>
		<description>I'll agree that the phrase "doesn't believe in God" probably makes most people think of atheists. But I'd also expect that a sizable portion of such people wouldn't think much better of an agnostic once the term was explained to them.

As far as justified, I suppose it depends on the level of justification you're talking about.

On the one hand, people can cast their vote for any reason they choose. People sometimes vote for politicians because they like their smile or their voice; is that justified? Intellectually, probably not. But as far as whether that's a legitimate basis for voting, sure.

On a practical or policy level, of course, I would say not -- voting for or against someone based on any single trait doesn't make logical sense. There's no reason to think a given believer is any more or less moral than a given atheist, for instance. And who would you consider more moral: A man who has been divorced three times but was faithful to each spouse, or a man who has been married to the same woman for 30 years but carries on myriad affairs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll agree that the phrase &#8220;doesn&#8217;t believe in God&#8221; probably makes most people think of atheists. But I&#8217;d also expect that a sizable portion of such people wouldn&#8217;t think much better of an agnostic once the term was explained to them.</p>
<p>As far as justified, I suppose it depends on the level of justification you&#8217;re talking about.</p>
<p>On the one hand, people can cast their vote for any reason they choose. People sometimes vote for politicians because they like their smile or their voice; is that justified? Intellectually, probably not. But as far as whether that&#8217;s a legitimate basis for voting, sure.</p>
<p>On a practical or policy level, of course, I would say not &#8212; voting for or against someone based on any single trait doesn&#8217;t make logical sense. There&#8217;s no reason to think a given believer is any more or less moral than a given atheist, for instance. And who would you consider more moral: A man who has been divorced three times but was faithful to each spouse, or a man who has been married to the same woman for 30 years but carries on myriad affairs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy the Dhimmi</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376419</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy the Dhimmi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376419</guid>
		<description>Hmm.  I guess its semantics. I always thought the definition of agnosticism was someone who didn't subscribe to a particular religion, or someone who rejects the concept of organized religion alltogether.  Maybe &lt;em&gt;deist&lt;/em&gt; is a better word for me to use?

Anyway, even with Sean's definition of agnosticism, a "No" answer to the question, "Do you believe in God" still seems like a rejection of the existence of a supreme being, and If I was given this survey, I would assume it meant that the candidate was an athiest.  Perhaps the pollsters should make the distinction next time.

Lets assume it does mean athiest and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; agnostic.  How would that affect peoples opinions, and would they be justified?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm.  I guess its semantics. I always thought the definition of agnosticism was someone who didn&#8217;t subscribe to a particular religion, or someone who rejects the concept of organized religion alltogether.  Maybe <em>deist</em> is a better word for me to use?</p>
<p>Anyway, even with Sean&#8217;s definition of agnosticism, a &#8220;No&#8221; answer to the question, &#8220;Do you believe in God&#8221; still seems like a rejection of the existence of a supreme being, and If I was given this survey, I would assume it meant that the candidate was an athiest.  Perhaps the pollsters should make the distinction next time.</p>
<p>Lets assume it does mean athiest and <em>not</em> agnostic.  How would that affect peoples opinions, and would they be justified?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Aqui</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376399</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Aqui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376399</guid>
		<description>An agnostic in the popular sense says "I don't know." There might be a God, there might not. It's pretty much impossible to prove either way.

So I don't believe in God, but I also don't *disbelieve* in God. I don't acknowledge his existence, but I acknowledge the possibility of his existence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An agnostic in the popular sense says &#8220;I don&#8217;t know.&#8221; There might be a God, there might not. It&#8217;s pretty much impossible to prove either way.</p>
<p>So I don&#8217;t believe in God, but I also don&#8217;t *disbelieve* in God. I don&#8217;t acknowledge his existence, but I acknowledge the possibility of his existence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy the Dhimmi</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376197</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy the Dhimmi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:09:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-376197</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;No, a lack of belief is also applicable to agnostics. An absolute conviction that God does not exist is what defines atheism. &lt;/blockquote&gt;
To me, thats even worse.  If you acknowledge the existence of God, but you don't "believe" in him, it sounds like you have spite for the Creator of the Universe, or you know better than He does.  To have "belief" in someone implies that you have confidence in that person, or you agree with him somehow; therefore, for an agnostic to say you don't believe in God is sort of like saying, "Ya, I know He is there, I just think He is kind of a douchebag."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>No, a lack of belief is also applicable to agnostics. An absolute conviction that God does not exist is what defines atheism. </p></blockquote>
<p>To me, thats even worse.  If you acknowledge the existence of God, but you don&#8217;t &#8220;believe&#8221; in him, it sounds like you have spite for the Creator of the Universe, or you know better than He does.  To have &#8220;belief&#8221; in someone implies that you have confidence in that person, or you agree with him somehow; therefore, for an agnostic to say you don&#8217;t believe in God is sort of like saying, &#8220;Ya, I know He is there, I just think He is kind of a douchebag.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim S</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-375886</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:16:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-375886</guid>
		<description>No, a lack of belief is also applicable to agnostics. An absolute conviction that God does not exist is what defines atheism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, a lack of belief is also applicable to agnostics. An absolute conviction that God does not exist is what defines atheism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy the Dhimmi</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-375463</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy the Dhimmi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-375463</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Not believing in God Ã¢â‚¬â€? which, defined that way, applies to agnostics like me&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I don't see that such a correlation is made in this survey.  If a politician says, "I don't believe in God," that sounds more like an atheist. That is a pretty harsh position to have - an unyielding faith in absolute nothingness, and a commitment to believing there is no higher purpose to "creation," if you could even call it that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Not believing in God Ã¢â‚¬â€? which, defined that way, applies to agnostics like me</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t see that such a correlation is made in this survey.  If a politician says, &#8220;I don&#8217;t believe in God,&#8221; that sounds more like an atheist. That is a pretty harsh position to have - an unyielding faith in absolute nothingness, and a commitment to believing there is no higher purpose to &#8220;creation,&#8221; if you could even call it that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wj</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-375030</link>
		<dc:creator>wj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:40:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-375030</guid>
		<description>The trouble with surveys like this one, I find, is that they assume that I will apply the same criteria regardless of the office for which someone is running.  To take just the obvious example, I would have a very different reaction to a complete lack of political experience if the candidate was running for town council than I would if he was running for President.   

About all this chart reflects is what general prejudices and level of tolerance the population admits to.  But as for how they would actually vote?  When it comes down to actual candidates, even people who say they would be less likely (or more likely) to vote for someone with a particular characteristic are going to turn out to care rather more about track records and their reaction to what the individual says and how he says it.   A 75 year old gay athiest might well get elected mayor of a conservative small town . . . if he'd spent a couple of terms on the town council and done well.  Not based on the survey, but in the real world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The trouble with surveys like this one, I find, is that they assume that I will apply the same criteria regardless of the office for which someone is running.  To take just the obvious example, I would have a very different reaction to a complete lack of political experience if the candidate was running for town council than I would if he was running for President.   </p>
<p>About all this chart reflects is what general prejudices and level of tolerance the population admits to.  But as for how they would actually vote?  When it comes down to actual candidates, even people who say they would be less likely (or more likely) to vote for someone with a particular characteristic are going to turn out to care rather more about track records and their reaction to what the individual says and how he says it.   A 75 year old gay athiest might well get elected mayor of a conservative small town . . . if he&#8217;d spent a couple of terms on the town council and done well.  Not based on the survey, but in the real world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-374977</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/07/23/anyone-but-the-godless/#comment-374977</guid>
		<description>"Not believing in God Ã¢â‚¬â€? which, defined that way, applies to agnostics like me Ã¢â‚¬â€? renders a candidate suspicious in the eyes of two-thirds of voters. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worse than being old, uneducated, gay, Muslim, female, divorced, a drug user or a philanderer."

That's because two-thirds of the population are what I call "clueless Christians." Not all Christians are naive or clueless, but it has become clear that a good share of them are. 

These are the types of Christians that watch the 700 Club and believe every word Pat Robertson SAYS, the Christian version of a "jihadist." These are the types of Christians which believe so strongly about life (Pro-Lifers) that they wholeheartedly support the war in Iraq, which, no matter what you'de like to say about it, kills 10's of thousands of children.

Let's face it, a good share of America is made up of these "critical" thinkers. They elect people like Bush because he's a "man of God." Is it any wonder why the rest of the world thinks of America as a backwater for the most part? 

Religion should be able to be practiced throughout America, all religions as long as they don't become radical, religion shouldn't have the ear of the president or the reigns of our government. Most Americans are ignorant and Christian. I dare say they are ignorant because they are Christians. I don't believe all Christians are ignorant but the vast majority of American Christians (Protestant and Catholics alike) are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Not believing in God Ã¢â‚¬â€? which, defined that way, applies to agnostics like me Ã¢â‚¬â€? renders a candidate suspicious in the eyes of two-thirds of voters. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worse than being old, uneducated, gay, Muslim, female, divorced, a drug user or a philanderer.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s because two-thirds of the population are what I call &#8220;clueless Christians.&#8221; Not all Christians are naive or clueless, but it has become clear that a good share of them are. </p>
<p>These are the types of Christians that watch the 700 Club and believe every word Pat Robertson SAYS, the Christian version of a &#8220;jihadist.&#8221; These are the types of Christians which believe so strongly about life (Pro-Lifers) that they wholeheartedly support the war in Iraq, which, no matter what you&#8217;de like to say about it, kills 10&#8217;s of thousands of children.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s face it, a good share of America is made up of these &#8220;critical&#8221; thinkers. They elect people like Bush because he&#8217;s a &#8220;man of God.&#8221; Is it any wonder why the rest of the world thinks of America as a backwater for the most part? </p>
<p>Religion should be able to be practiced throughout America, all religions as long as they don&#8217;t become radical, religion shouldn&#8217;t have the ear of the president or the reigns of our government. Most Americans are ignorant and Christian. I dare say they are ignorant because they are Christians. I don&#8217;t believe all Christians are ignorant but the vast majority of American Christians (Protestant and Catholics alike) are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 3.326 seconds -->
