HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Sam Harris: Donald Trump ...

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 10:50 AM

 

Sam Harris: Donald Trump would be our first atheist president



Republican Donald Trump could become the first atheist president of the United States, according to neuroscience author Sam Harris.

“The one thing that is surprising and actually hopeful in Trump’s candidacy is the fact that he has dissected out the religious, social conservative component of the Republican Party,” Harris said on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.

“Evangelicals, for the most part, were going for Trump over Cruz when it was pretty clear to them that Trump was just pretending to be religious.”

Harris, who is associated with the “New Atheism” movement, mocked Trump for referring to “Second Corinthians” as “Corinthians Two” during a speech at the evangelical Liberty University.

“It is clear to them that he is just miming the language or impersonating a person of faith, but they don’t care really, as long as he does it,” he explained. “And that — if you look for a silver lining to this – it shows they just want a space where their religious convictions are not under attack. They don’t really care that the person in charge share them. If you pretend to share them, that’s good enough.”

snip-----------------------

“He might be our first atheist president.”

snip-----------------------

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/sam-harris-donald-trump-would-be-our-first-atheist-president/



23 replies, 2858 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sam Harris: Donald Trump would be our first atheist president (Original post)
stone space Oct 2016 OP
stone space Oct 2016 #1
HAB911 Oct 2016 #2
stone space Oct 2016 #3
rug Oct 2016 #4
deathrind Oct 2016 #5
rug Oct 2016 #6
shenmue Oct 2016 #7
RaymondLuxuryYacht Oct 2016 #9
eppur_se_muova Oct 2016 #10
TexasProgresive Oct 2016 #11
Goblinmonger Oct 2016 #12
stone space Oct 2016 #14
Bradical79 Oct 2016 #18
trotsky Oct 2016 #13
stone space Oct 2016 #15
trotsky Oct 2016 #16
stone space Oct 2016 #17
trotsky Oct 2016 #19
stone space Oct 2016 #21
trotsky Oct 2016 #22
stone space Oct 2016 #23
Bradical79 Oct 2016 #20

Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 10:56 AM

1. Seems to me that Trump worships at the Church of the Golden Calf.

 

And he kneels at the Alter of the Holy Gun.

Donald Trump is No True Atheist.

True Atheists don't worship at the Church of the Golden Calf, and we don't kneel at the Alter of the Holy Gun.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 10:59 AM

2. As much as I want one

Trump would be a closet atheist, and anyway...........not a snowballs chance now. (thankfully)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:13 AM

3. If Trump is an atheist, he's an atheist who aspires to Godhood.

 

Or one who thinks that he's already achieved it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:35 AM

4. I'm surprised he's not voting for him.

 

With his view of Muslims, he aligns with his top two issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:41 AM

5. His view of Muslims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deathrind (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:51 AM

6. His view of Muslims.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:52 AM

7. He's a Presbyterian

More lack of awareness from Sam Harris.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 12:31 PM

9. I guess he is equating amoralism with atheism.

Please don't be on my side. Go join w/ Ben Carson and see what you get when you rub 2 brain cells together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 12:37 PM

10. ... that we know of.

Can't ever forget that phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 12:55 PM

11. Nah! He's an autolatrist.

autolatry (ɔːˈtɒlətrɪ
n
the worship of oneself
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:37 PM

12. In today's parlance, Jefferson would be an atheist.

 

Or at least what many people to refer to as agnostic (Those aren't mutually exclusive).

I find it hard to believe that there hasn't been a non-out atheist in the office of president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 29, 2016, 07:14 AM

14. Agnostics can't speak for atheists. That's just a way to make true atheists invisible.

 


Or at least what many people to refer to as agnostic (Those aren't mutually exclusive).


On the internet, I've noticed a tendency for some agnostics to try to to speak for us.

The newfangled terminology that you refer to is designed to make true atheists a minority within "atheism" itself, and to dilute the voices of atheism by drowning those atheistic voices in a sea of agnosticism.

I'm an old school atheist. I'm what might be termed an atheist atheist in your newfangled modern terminology.

Part of the "atheist wing of the 'atheist' party", so to speak.

But for me, saying that I am an atheist atheist seems redundant.

What you would call atheist atheism is just plain atheism to me, and what you would call agnostic atheism is just plain agnosticism.

I don't accept the supremacy of agnosticism within atheism, which is what this newfangled terminology promoted by some agnostics is designed to promote.

Agnostics should stand tall and proud on their own, and stop trying to piggy back on us.

If I can be a proud atheist, there's no reason why agnostics cannot be proud agnostics.

There's no reason for agnostics to try to hide in an atheist closet.

Step out of the closet and be proud of your agnosticism.

There's nothing to be ashamed of.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 10:19 AM

18. Hell, people called him that in his time too

 

Pretty sure it was a common accusation leveled at him by his political opponents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Mon Oct 24, 2016, 07:58 AM

13. Huh.

I must have missed where Drumpf self-identified as an atheist. When did that happen?

And what's the point of posting something that's almost 5 months old?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:39 PM

15. So far as I know, he hasn't.

 

I must have missed where Drumpf self-identified as an atheist. When did that happen?


And, as I explained in a post above, his Idolatry is a little hard to reconcile with atheism, regardless of any claims that he might make in that regard.

Should he claim to be an atheist, or a Christian, or a decent human being, or whatever, one could attempt to measure his truthfulness with a polygraph, I suppose, although I'm not sure how well polygraphs work on pathological liars like Trump.

For those of us who don't have access to a polygraph machine, or who lack the power to compel Trump to be hooked up to one, there are other methods for judging the truthfulness of Presidential candidates.

One such method that I've heard is thru the use of internet memes.

If one can find an internet meme that would prove one way or the other that Trump is either lying or telling the truth, then that meme would function as an internet polygraph machine.

I've seen the No True Scotsman internet meme applied in this manner to determine truthfulness.

This method is said to logically prove that Trump is truthful.

Some call it science, but others call it pseudoscience.

I ran into a couple of Corinthians in a bar the other day, and they both considered this application of the NTS meme as a polygraph to be pseudoscience rather than science.

Of course, they were both drunk at the time, so who knows?



Those two Corinthians told me that the only way to scientifically prove that Trump is telling the truth is to put him in a bus with Billy Bush and observe him saying it then.

They told me that the internet meme was pseudoscience.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:04 AM

16. I honestly have no idea what you're on about here.

Have fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 09:10 AM

17. Your comment seemed to suggest that you were using the NTS meme as a polygraph.

 

I was pointing out that such an application of that internet meme to distinguish between truth telling vs lying is pseudoscience, not science.

Your conclusion is correct, however, despite the pseudoscientific reasoning employed to derive it, due to the reasons that I outlined regarding his Idolatry.

Idolatry is not atheism, and idolaters are not atheists.

Like a broken clock, sometimes pseudoscience can lead to the correct answer, I suppose.



But let's face reality.

Billy Bush functions much better as a polygraph machine than the No True Scotsman internet meme ever did.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 10:22 AM

19. My comment suggested nothing of the sort.

Were I to employ NTS, it would be in the context of Drumpf claiming to be an atheist, and me denying that.

I merely asked if Drumpf had ever self-identified as an atheist. You clearly don't know. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 10:31 AM

21. Trump self-identifies as a respecter of women. He's been quite clear about this.

 

Were I to employ NTS, it would be in the context of Drumpf claiming to be an atheist, and me denying that.


In fact, he claims to respect women more than anybody.

Now, the No True Scotsmen polygraph (which I claim to be pseudoscience) says Trump is telling the truth, and that Trump actually is a respecter of women.

Whereas the Billy Bush polygraph says that trump is lying, and that Trump is actually not a respecter of women.

Which do you believe?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 11:00 AM

22. If you truly understood what the No True Scotsman logical fallacy was about,

you'd realize your question here makes absolutely no sense.

But since you have previously referred to NTS as an "meme" there is not much point in me trying to explain further.

I wish you much luck in your quest for learning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 11:02 AM

23. If you have no answer, that's fine. I kind of anticipated that, actually.

 



Pseudoscience can be difficult to defend when confronted directly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 10:30 AM

20. Trump could have a delusion in the opposite end of the spectrum

 

I'm sure lots of sociopaths are atheists, in that they're of living proof that a particular (and popular) concept of God doesn't exist. Though, it's also possible he has an extreme delusion in the other dirrection, seeing himself as some sort of messianic type figure who is supernaturally superior, and therefore not subject to everyone else's idea of morality. He's made some statements that seem consistent with that too.

Another possibility is that he has some sort of belief in God, but is not capable of seeing his own moral contradictions, or it's just a very vaugue thing he doesn't put much thought into.

Despite being a neuroscience professor, I think Sam Harris is just giving a hot take on something he hasn't really thought through completely. It wouldn't be the first time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread