Whoa- that’s the first time I can recall a presidential contender mentioning non-believers in a positive context.  Way to go.

Running against a majority would be political suicide, he has to be careful not to upset xians in his attempt to gain the support of other groups. Boosting minorities (non-believers and other faiths) is fine so long as you don’t detract from the bias of the majority, or lead them to believe that you do

Whether or not this’ll work depends on how much the average american voter will listen to reason, and whether or not they prefer him over one who would further their bias and incorporate it into policy

He was a strong contender for my vote for quite some time, and this clinches the deal as of this date.

This only solidifies what I have been saying for over a year.  Obama should be our next president.  I don’t give a fuck about his age, he is intelligent, thoughtful, thought provoking, and says what needs to be said, including the above statement.

I only add, I hope he chooses The Governator as his running mate.

Yeah - it is refreshing that Obama would mention the fact that the US isn’t a Christian nation.

Whether or not this’ll work depends on how much the average american voter will listen to reason ...

If it depends on that, then we’re all doomed.

Obama has had my vote for a long time.

(Psst. The Governator can’t be Veep. He’s not a natural born citizen.)

I think I’m hoping we change that stupid rule…

Me too. Then Jerry Springer could run.

He is still a halfrican.

A fact that makes him even more appealing to me if for no other reason then he’d piss you off.

Curses! Foiled again!

Curses! Foiled again!

Music to my ears.  C’mon.  Say that again.

Whether or not this’ll work depends on how much the average american voter will listen to reason ...

If it depends on that, then we’re all doomed.

Can’t resist favorite Adlai Stevenson quote again.  An enthusiastic volunteer told him that every thinking American would vote for him.  He said; “Thank you, Ma’am, but that won’t be enough. We need a majority.”

Elitist?  About damn time we got somebody elite in the top job…

Elitist?  About damn time we got somebody elite in the top job…

And it’s about damn time we thinking Americans recognize the “elitist” slur for what it really is: a glaring indication of insecurity. How much courage and integrity does it take to vote a certifiable moron into executive office?

“Someday the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
— H.L. Mencken

“Very often that substitute [for education] takes the form of anti-intellectualism - a pretense that knowledge, education, and culture are worthless or even dangerous.  This is, of course, a typical sour-grapes reaction; not long ago one could identify those suffering from it by their fondness for the word “egghead.” That engaging term is now a little out of fashion, because the events of the last few years have made it obvious to everyone that society that despises brains is on the one-way road to oblivion.”
- Arthur C. Clarke, The Lunatic Fringe

obvious to everyone that society that despises brains is on the one-way road to oblivion.

Unfortunately not.  I don’t want the guy in charge to be a regular kind of guy. I want him to know what he’s doing.  How many politicians have any useful qualification or training in ruling?

Britain and American are societies which value the lowest common denominator over the clever.  Watch the populat culture- Sit-coms and Soaps. How often do we see the hero as a ‘Regular Joe’ triumphing over the intellectual. Look at the way the clever are portrayed- bow tie wearing snobs.

Criticise popular culture and people sneer at you (Unfortunately on occasion that includes you Les!).

I’ll stop before this becomes to ranty…

The commonperson often considers themselves right, and that any clever person would think the same as they do, so anyone spouting off the same ideas must be intelligent in their eyes.

Interestingly, and perhaps correctly, some people think it stupid to think, because it causes distress when reflecting on the world and your own actions. Would it be easier to be an asshole who’s free from concience by their convinction that they’ll go to heaven, if so, why lead a more difficult life? Why care about others if they need not enter your concience?

WAR OBAMA!!!!

p.s. That is game speak for; Go obama and/or Win obama.

p.s.s. I do not support the american invasion of Iraq.

Whopvillian: p.s.s. I do not support the american invasion of Iraq.

You sure you’re on the right site?  We’re all die-hard Bush fanatics here.  No seriously - welcome to SEB.  Now, what makes you think you’re not really supporting the invasion/occupation?  Do you hold out on your taxes or something?

Interestingly, and perhaps correctly, some people think it stupid to think ...

I think those who think it’s stupid to think are not thinking clearly ... wait ... my skull just imploded.

My mother-in-law probably put this most succinctly, but by accident of course, when she once said, “It’s hard to think when you’re not used to it.”

More Obama, this time on hypothetical scenarios…

MP: I think those who think it’s stupid to think are not thinking clearly ... wait ... my skull just imploded

But if ignorance is indeed bliss, is it really something to move away from? Being aware of the world’s problems, watching it decay under stupidity, is distressing, and yet you cannot completely rid the world of stupidity, so would suffer yourself looking back on the world (though you can, on a small scale, shape the people around you into an image you find more pleasing, providing you let the alternative distress you). Knowledge of your effect on others also restricts your actions…

However I say this all in the safety of knowing it won’t work - you can’t forget what you already know (of how people are emotionally affected) and you can’t (permanently) lose your concience. This is actually intended to get people to think about the direction we’re headed in, from where you can decide which you prefer. I’m also hurrying on mistakes that would’ve happened anyway. I also know from the outset, ignorance can be hell, it’s horrible to be in unnecessary, continual hate or worry, and feel slaven to people’s expectations and those of your own.

Michael Peacock: Now, what makes you think you’re not really supporting the invasion/occupation?  Do you hold out on your taxes or something?

You and your logic **shakes fist in the air**

I of course am forced to fund the invasion/occupation. But I wish I did not, as I do not agree with it.

Similarly to that rapscallions faith based programs. I would never EVER willing give my money to the spread of any bigotry, unreason, religion, supernatural, superstition, ect, ect, ect. Yet I am forced to finacially support the spread of those as well.

Oh noes, teh religions! Much evils!

Greets, I’m Mikhail. I talk funny.

Well, though I myself ams nots quites the most devout person in the world, I have no problem with religion.

Why?

You’re completely right that ignorance is bliss. Conscious, rational thought is physical damnation. You’re not quite machine enough to ignore your emotions, but you’re not quite human enough to embrace them and the idiocy that it brings.

So, you implode. Yays.

Religion, in any form, does manage to fill that niche. You can forget about your silly earth problems. That’s god’s business, you know. In moderation, religion can allow the common person, who has neither attained enlightenment, nor is completely useless, to power society, move the human race forward, and yet not remain completely ignorant.

Einstein did it. Not all religious people are idiots. It does really help to forget about stuff.

Of course, if you do manage to divide your conscious brain up, you can be both truly enlightened, and sane. You’ll be wildly eccentric and somewhere down the line you’ll probably get depressed, but you’ll function until middle age.

And if you consider yourself enlightened, and truly rational, and yet do not feel somewhat insane, then you, are not quite enlightened, or, quite frankly, you’re missing that wonderful part of the psyche that tells you that people dying and fighting for worthless causes and living pointless lives is sad.

My three cents. (Plus tax)

Greets, I’m Mikhai

Yo

Religion, in any form, does manage to fill that niche

There seems to be a religion need, or a set of needs that makes a person likely to turn to religion. Unless you’re 100% absolutely certain of what to expect on death, it opens up a lot of questions (pondering mortality day in, day out, no way of finding out, but might as well be prepared for anything

and somewhere down the line you’ll probably get depressed

There does indeed seem a pattern (bolzmann, carothers, etc). I suspect when the mind is overactive it dispells the illusions that give it security, because it has to latch onto something, so it self-destructs. Normally the mind creates perception illusions to help people better deal with the world - a coping strategy, many people can’t handle full-on reality, and I’d be lying if I said I could.

Assuming that, in this sort of psychological example, the individual came to atheism through rational dispelling, I have a simpler phrased idea of what goes on. I think its a double effect of the fact that, in the end. one realizes that, everything is pointless, and that everything is incredibly temporary, along with the notion you just mentioned, the fact that there is nothing to “go back to”, no sort of shield from reality.

And, assuming that the person, hypothetically, of course, came to it through rationality, I wouldn’t be surprised if our own morality, defined in any way, would backfire and make the individual highly depressed at the terrible state of affairs the world is in.