Religious affiliations of Prius owners

Stalin and Mao were against organized religion not because they were Atheists. They were against organized religion because they didn't want people to worship God - they wanted people to worship THEM. They didn't want the competition.

I'm not joking.

 

OK, the obvious name hasn't come up....which internet law demands must be said....so I'll say it. HITLER!!!!

Now it's your predisposition to lump him in a religious group! Personally, I think it's pointless to try to lump individuals to an entire religious group. Extremists are going to use any idiology they can get to push their own agenda...it's a whole range of ideas: be it social, political, and yes...unfortunately, religious as well.

 

So howcum if better than half of those who cast a vote here voted secular it is still impossible for an admitted atheist to win public office?

Or maybe one could win office.

It hasn't been tried yet, but I wonder if professing atheism would in fact IMPROVE a candidate's chances (maybe not in every race), and our only thinking it wouldn't is based on an assumption that went obsolete without our noticing that it had gone obsolete.

This is not to say that atheists would always vote for atheists or that believers would always vote for believers (one hopes that stances on issues would carry the day over religious/irreligious affiliation), but it's an as yet untested, unanswered question.

Another factor is: would an agnostic prefer a candidate who professes belief over an atheist candidate, if issues stances were otherwise equivalent?

 

Hey if Obama can win... ANYONE could win.

 

It took 200 years to break the colour barrier. I'd guess the gender barrier will be next, followed by the faith barrier. I doubt I'll be around to see it.

 

Around the 2000 election I made a prediction that is coming true, and I still believe it.

We will have an African-American president before we have a female president (this came true).

We will have a female president before we have a Jewish president.

We will have a Jewish president before we have an openly gay president.

We will have an openly gay president before we have a Muslim president (and don't forget, I made this prediction before 9/11).

We will have a Muslim president before we have an openly Atheist president. ie, not in our lifetime, nor our childrens' or grandchildrens' lifetime.

 

would mao, stalin or hilter drive a prius?:evil:

 

Mao = no, too wasteful for the general population.

Stalin = only if he could copy it and manufacture it in country probably by Zil.

Hitler = yea... and he'd have it built wit ze spin zat it zhould be undarstood dat zis vas a Deutche invention und all uddersd are forgeries of a pure aryan inspired design.

 

Even if an atheist won the vote, you would still have the problem of not being able to swear him into office.



Tom

 

Well, it's a thread about religion on an enthusiasts website for a relatively expensive, hi-tech car designed to be efficient instead of high-performance.

So that would lean towards college-educated people with a scientific bent which means more atheists. Then there's a thread on religion that atheists would be drawn to*.

Oh and based on a previous poll the Prius is disproportionately gay which, I'd suspect, means even more atheists, what with the usual attitude of religions to homosexuals.

Not that I'm complaining about the high number of atheists.

* Since most people are from the USA. In the UK more people would yawn and skip the thread.

 

Wow, could you use a broader brush?

Um, no. and hell no. what planet are you from?

 

+1...I dont see any connection between sexual orientation and religious believes

 

...but Rush Limbaugh reportedly said anyone driving a hybird is a godless gay socialist. I don't fit his profiling - at all.

 

+1 I fail to see any relationship between sexual orientation and religious beliefs. I know a number of openly gay Orthodox Jews. I'm interested if not about $ has any figures or just made assumptions.

 

Religion and sexuality are tied closely. It is forbidden in many relgions, but it has to do with how people interpret whatever book they are interpreting.

Then there is the whole other category of people who "are" whatever religion but really are only part of the club for social interaction and fear of continued living after death in a place south of ideal-land. For example, the largest group around me would be the Christians that never go to church, could not cite a single verse apart from "and on the seventh day he rested", definately do not follow any of the 10 commandments (lie, cheat, steal, whatever just as much as anyone else), yet "are" Christian. I guess their hope is if they carry the card with them one day if there is an opportunity to cash in, they have it in their bag.

It is this latter grouping of religious people that tend to be open about things that are condemned reluigiously like homosexuality.

It might also be that the stereotypes of Prius drivers are more true than illustrated on this site.

It would seem we have the union of those that own a Prius and those that are technical and those that like to type on forums, which is a rather specialized subset. Sure there are conservatives and those that break all the stereotypes on here, but they are more than likely on the edge of the techie venn circle which would seem more generic in political background. If we could poll every individual in the US like a giant census, I think the Prius stereotypes would show more prominently.

 

I think you're assuming that priuschat is a cross section of American society but it's not. This is a very liberal site. The country however is more center-right and the majority of the population believes in a god of some sort.

 

The question hasn't been asked yet, but I think it should be:

Is science a religion?

"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of
any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East,
can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly
dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide
bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven — and not
just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their
special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope
may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially
trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.

Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of
reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic
that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone
who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion
like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith.
Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices.

Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks
evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted
from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting
Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue
because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other
hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of
scientists."

More: Richard Dawkins: Is Science A Religion?

No.

 

I would say that most of America is straight center: that's why I suspect there's going to be even more of a swing saw of party dominance. Everyone has their own ideas about social, economical, and foriegn policy....but I've noticed no one directly fits a stereotype. I've known some die hard conservatives that are for gay rights. I've known some die hard liberals that are anti-abortion. Most people want a balanced budget, but it's different ideologies about what does make one.

If you also consider that there's a different meaning between Athiest vs Agnostic, I'm not seeing that priuschat is dominantly non-god believing either. Then again, this poll isn't also asking political affiliation, so maybe there are more liberals on this site.

 

When I read it, I just assumed it was all tongue-in-cheek and it made sense to me. Being an optimistic person, in the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to continue to believe that's how it was meant.