The editorial discusses Pascal's Wager, but this struck me:
quote:For the record, Pascal was a Christian. He offered up his wager to persuade nonbelievers to believe. In France, it apparently didn’t work. Only 17 percent of the French agree with John Adams’s assertion that belief in God is necessary to make proper moral choices, according to a recent poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. Fifty-seven percent of Americans do.
This means that I, for example, could never run for high public office (not that I had any plans). My opinions, works, whatever legislation I worked on, the number of people I helped, none of that would matter because I didn't parrot the correct religious line to trip the "he's OK" button in voters' heads.
Some people, religious or not, would, of course, vote for or against me solely on my merits -- Hatrack is certainly self-selecting for intelligent people -- but for a staggering amount of American voters I believe my non-belief would immediately disqualify me as a worthy candidate.
That's just depressing.
Posted by Mick from Mars (Member # 11347) on :
I'm wondering where they got that 57 percent statistic from.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yes, but I get the sense that America is becoming less religious with each successive generation. I'm not sure what the cause is, but my guess is that the trend will continue.
So while we'd never get an atheist president elected now, I think we might have one in my lifetime.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Not never. Just not right now. Look at the bright side, Chris! Give it ten years and we may have a shot.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
For the record, I'm more apatheist than atheist - atheism takes too much work - and I have plenty of things in my past that could be used to ruin me for public office before they ever got to the God thing. But still.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm thinking more like 20, Javert - but I agree with the sentiment.
Unfortunately, people often vote with their gut or with their biases, rather than through any actual, logical evaulation of the candidates.
It will take longer than a decade for the majority of voters' "gut reaction" and "bias" to non-Christian (let alone atheist) candidates to fade.
Posted by Mick from Mars (Member # 11347) on :
I think that it could happen in about three election cycles. Maybe that's a little short, but it's good to hope for something. I'm not atheistic, but I would personally find it rather dissapointing if that kind of statistic lasted into my middle age.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Unfortunately, people often vote with their gut or with their biases, rather than through any actual, logical evaulation of the candidates.
I do this, too. I'm not voting for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and was created in seven days. How can I trust that guy to be in charge of my country? I mean, I remember questioning the creation story when I was 11 years old.
I guess that makes me part of the problem.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The Economist just ran a short article on this topic, America's Atheists: Believe it or not. One interesting piece of data was that almost 30 million people claimed "no religion" in the American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, which is double the number in 1991. Although "no religion" is not the equivalent of atheism, I do think there's a developing secular trend, similar to what's happened in Europe.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
What I'm saying, JT, is that people don't always vote for the "best candidate" - but often for the most palatable one.
This could be the better speaker, the more attractive candidate, the younger/older candidate, the candidate who shares their religion, the candidate who did/did not serve in the military, etc.
Their stances on various issues are often secondary, or tertiary, or worse.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm saying that's almost exactly how I vote.
I don't choose a candidate based on their beliefs, but I will disqualify a candidate that way.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not voting for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and was created in seven days. How can I trust that guy to be in charge of my country? I mean, I remember questioning the creation story when I was 11 years old.
I remember questioning it that early or earlier myself, but I don't think that the age of a when a question occurs has much bearing on whether or not I'll judge as unfit somebody who ended up with a different answer than the one I decided on.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, strictly out of curiosity, do you only vote for atheists?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm not voting for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and was created in seven days. How can I trust that guy to be in charge of my country? I mean, I remember questioning the creation story when I was 11 years old.
I remember questioning it that early or earlier myself, but I don't think that the age of a when a question occurs has much bearing on whether or not I'll judge as unfit somebody who ended up with a different answer than the one I decided on.
I agree. There are certain questions that I can see both sides thinking they have the right answer. That's great -- I have no problem with someone coming to a different conclusion so long as (as far as I can determine) that conclusion is plausible.
Creationist and bible literalists aren't drawing what I consider to be plausible conclusions from the available evidence. That doesn't mean they're bad people, or that I dislike them. Just that, as a rule, I'm not voting for someone who's either delusional, willfully ignorant, or has criminally bad logical reasoning skills.*
And why, FC, would you get the idea that I only vote for atheists? I've never voted for an atheist.
*I want to expand on this paragraph a bit, because I don't want any of the theists here that I'm friends with to get the wrong idea. As far as personal relationships go, I don't think what anyone else believes is anyone's business but their own. But it definitely comes into play in an election, because it could and likely will have a big effect on how that person will act if elected. And how the president acts will likely have a big effect on all of our lives.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Right now, I agree that an atheist candidate has little or no chance of being elected. However, there are many possible and probable future events that could render one's position on God irrelevant. A dollar collapse and depression, for example, could send people scrambling for someone who understands monetary policy, or even someone who promises a new New Deal. When we other issues to deal with, immediate hardship issues, the God question could fade.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If someone agreed with me on every other issue and was an atheist, and the other person disagreed with me on pretty much everything else but was not, the atheism would not prevent me from voting the issues.
P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Ah, okay, I see. You're talking about literalist beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
Gotcha. Misread on my part.
I think there is a shade of difference, though, in the "I rule out this person because they believe X, Y, and Z" and "I rule out this person because they carry this label".
Basically, you're ruling out people you feel to have extremist views that ignore science - not ruling them out because of their belief in a religion in general.
I tend rule out extremists, myself - if they close your mind to options in one area, it makes it more likely they will do so in another area. This does not just apply to religion, though.
For instance, I wouldn't rule out someone who was a Christian. I would rule out Ken Phelps or Jack Chick - because he's an extremist nut job, though, not because of his Christian status.
I think we're in agreement on that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'm saying that's almost exactly how I vote.
I don't choose a candidate based on their beliefs, but I will disqualify a candidate that way.
Agreed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Also, during the Reagan era, who could have imagined we would elect and consider electing confessed drug users? Things can change pretty fast. Prior to Reagan, had we had any divorced presidents?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score.
Why couldn't an atheist be sincere on the abortion issue?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't really care what the candidates personal beliefs are as long as he (universal he, not ruling out potential for female candidates) does believe in freedom of religion and won't tell me how or what to believe. So long as I personally enjoy the right to worship how I please, I don't care what the president is doing on Sunday morning.
As for could an atheist get elected, I would venture to guess some already have. I don't doubt that there are people who've been president who only claimed to be of a particular faith in order to be electable (no, not thinking of anyone in particular, just playing the odds that it's likely happened). What's worse? Someone open and honest about his beliefs or someone who will lie to get in power? I think I might appreciate honesty.
Then again, honesty and politician don't go together very well. But I might just be in a really cynical mood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: As far as personal relationships go, I don't think what anyone else believes is anyone's business but their own. But it definitely comes into play in an election, because it could and likely will have a big effect on how that person will act if elected. And how the president acts will likely have a big effect on all of our lives.
I can understand not voting for someone, for example, if they believe that the world will definitely end within the next 50 years, and therefore there's no need to plan for a future beyond that.
If someone believed that the earth is under 10,000 years old because of the conclusions of bad creationist "science", I can understand the objection, as it gives you a glimpse on how they'll interpret science in the future. Likewise if because they believe that since evolution didn't happen the way scientists think, all medical science that uses Darwinist assumptions is wrong.
But just because someone believes that the earth is young doesn't mean that they also believe those other things. I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd think that what a candidate believes is an important indicator of what sort of judgement that candidate has. Therefore, I don't think it is irrational to factor a candidate's religion into one's decision over whether or not to vote for that candidate. However, I do think it is irrational to make that the only factor, or even the most important factor.
I think an atheist can get elected - but I think in order to do so, he or she would need to be the clearly superior candidate in other major aspects.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But just because someone believes that the earth is young doesn't mean that they also believe those other things. I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable.
It basically says that, when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
And everyone has the right to have that belief. But I would be hard pressed to vote for someone who thinks that way.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It basically says that, when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
It says that they did that in one instance.
It's not like everybody who believes the earth is under 10K years old also believes that PI is equal to 3.0.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But just because someone believes that the earth is young doesn't mean that they also believe those other things. I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable. [/QB]
If someone believes the earth is young, then he either is grossly misinformed about science (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country), or is very bad at logical reasoning and argumentation (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country). The person must've come to his conclusion somehow, and all possible ways he might have come to that conclusion are, in my opinion, evidence that he should not be president.
So, I too would immediately disqualify any candidate from my ballot who says they believe in the Bible's literal truth or are a Creationist/Young Earther.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score."
I don't think a pro-choice position is required for atheism.
And Belle, you're right. I should have said that I couldn't run as a professed atheist and win. I could always lie.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Therefore, I don't think it is irrational to factor a candidate's religion into one's decision over whether or not to vote for that candidate. However, I do think it is irrational to make that the only factor, or even the most important factor.
Wow. I agree with Tres again.
Maybe by the end of 2008, I'll have to count the amount of times that's happened on *two* hands. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm pretty sure that old Tom Jefferson was an atheist. He might have believed in something that managed to get the whole universe started, but nothing more than that. So, basically, about the same level of atheism that Hume was at, and maybe slightly to the right of Dawkins (if far left is absolutely no chance anything supernatural-y exists, and far right is the religion X's texts are all literally true).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If someone believes the earth is young, then he either is grossly misinformed about science (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country), or is very bad at logical reasoning and argumentation (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country).
Nope. Those are not the only two options.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I know they aren't - which is why I also said
quote:The person must've come to his conclusion somehow, and all possible ways he might have come to that conclusion are, in my opinion, evidence that he should not be president.
I do think they're the two main ones however, which is why I highlighted them in my post. If you want to come up with different reasons, I'd be glad to hear them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score."
I don't think a pro-choice position is required for atheism. ...
Eh, you may be right. After all, a life-from-conception stance is not required in my religion, and yet that is what I support.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There are plenty of pro-life atheists. Google "pro-life atheist" for many more.
When you believe that this life is the only one anyone will ever have, the desire to make sure everyone gets that life makes sense.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "P.S. But considering the weight of abortion in my issues, I'd be hard pressed to consider the average atheist sincere on that score."
I don't think a pro-choice position is required for atheism.
True, in college a good friend of mine was an atheist, and was very pro life. He actually thought that it made more sense for atheists to be pro life than Christians. He such a thing as a soul existed then logically it would come into play at birth. He had this whole argument why this was so, but I'll not get into that now. Of course, to him all of this was hypothetical, since he said such a thing doesn't exist.
He said to an atheist there is no dividing line between a fetus and a baby. Since there is no "magic" associated with birth, a fetus is as much a living being as a baby. He said he could understand the age of viability argument, saying that it was not life until the point where some have been able to live outside the womb (I think this was 22 weeks). However, he still argued against all abortion saying that just because something is defenseless and can't live on its own, doesn't mean it is not life.
*shrug* I guess this is a little off track, but the mention of atheists on abortion just reminded me of on of Allen's rants.
As for voting based on religion, I think it is logical to vote for someone who shares beliefs with you. For a many Christian's, faith is an important part of their life. It makes sense for to want someone who shares that with you to lead the country. If someone does not agree with a group, I can see that group being worried that as a president the candidate would limit the rights of that group. Along those same lines, I think it would make sense for an atheist to vote against a candidate that is openly religious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is at least one professed athiest currently serving in the US house of representatives. I believe he is from the San Francisco bay area.
I suspect there are others as well
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's Peter Stark, a Democrat who is indeed from San Francisco. So far, he's the only one who has openly admitted to having no belief in God.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't see how the belief that the earth is under 10K years old, by itself, would cause behaviors that you'd find objectionable.
It wouldn't. But we don't live in a vacuum, and I believe that past behavior is one of the best indicators of future behavior.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing any one specific thing, but in this particular case (as I said earlier and as Jhai has expanded on) the blind devotion to something that defies all logical explanation tells me some valuable things about the believer's decision-making process. And those things make me uneasy enough that I wouldn't vote for them.
Posted by Hedwig (Member # 2315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
...Hatrack is certainly self-selecting for intelligent people...
Can an Atheist be elected President? With a little divine favor, sure.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Also, during the Reagan era, who could have imagined we would elect and consider electing confessed drug users? Things can change pretty fast. Prior to Reagan, had we had any divorced presidents?
Andrew Jackson married a woman who had not previously officially divorced her husband and that caused an uproar with the Jeffersonian Republicans.
We've had several presidents who married more then once, but Reagan is still the only president who has been divorced.
Buchanan was the only president to have never been married either before or after office.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't choose a candidate based on their beliefs, but I will disqualify a candidate that way.
To paraphrase Frank Costello from Departed, "What I'm askin' you is, 'What's the difference?'"
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think that there have been many presidents who were atheists, just none that openly admitted it.
I'd doubt either of the Clinton's, deep down, actually believe in God. I have no real evidence, and of course both would rigidly deny it if asked, but I think that they claim belief in order to be "electable".
Being an atheist myself, I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing. Just like I wouldn't fault a gay man for pretending to be straight to run for office, I don't fault skeptics for pretending to have faith. It's sad, but I don't consider it immoral. I'd probably do the same if I was planning on running for office.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Andrew Jackson married a woman who had not previously officially divorced her husband and that caused an uproar with the Jeffersonian Republicans.
Was that it? I thought it was just an uproar that she had been divorced at all. Now I've got to go research it.
Oh, well, it appears you're right. I guess telling them you're divorced when you're not is one way to get back at that estranged spouse.
[ December 14, 2007, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Andrew Jackson married a woman who had not previously officially divorced her husband and that caused an uproar with the Jeffersonian Republicans.
Was that it? I thought it was just an uproar that she had been divorced at all. Now I've got to go research it.
They were for all practical purposes divorced but because they had not gone through official channels, namely because he abandoned her, Jackson's opponents drummed it up to sound as if he had kidnapped another man's wife and taken advantage of her. They frequently called her a bigamist.
It's believed she suffered from depression and all the uproar made her very sick. She died very soon after he won the presidency and Jackson never forgave his critics for it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The Economist just ran a short article on this topic, America's Atheists: Believe it or not. One interesting piece of data was that almost 30 million people claimed "no religion" in the American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, which is double the number in 1991. Although "no religion" is not the equivalent of atheism, I do think there's a developing secular trend, similar to what's happened in Europe.
Thank god. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The Economist just ran a short article on this topic, America's Atheists: Believe it or not. One interesting piece of data was that almost 30 million people claimed "no religion" in the American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, which is double the number in 1991. Although "no religion" is not the equivalent of atheism, I do think there's a developing secular trend, similar to what's happened in Europe.
Thank god.
Wow I almost failed to catch the irony in that statement. *Knocks on head*
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
hehehe
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Quote: "when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
And everyone has the right to have that belief."
I realize that people have freedom of speech and are entitled to their opinions, but it never-the-less infuriates me that ANYONE would hold this belief. If on a given point (the value of pi? as an overused example) science and scripture contradict, and you choose to go with scripture, rather than with provable and supportable science... I simply cannot take you seriously, or at least understand you, and anyone falling in this category is summarily dismissed from my consideration of who to vote for.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I personally think it's impossible for scripture and science to be contradictory towards each other- scripture is God's revelation to mankind. And so is creation.
Creation reveals God and therefore cannot be against what is written in scripture. When they disagree I believe that we are either interpreting scripture badly or that science is lacking (or of course it is a specific breaking of the rules of the physical universe because of the intervention of God aka a miracle).
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Although, when the future of the Human race is at stake I would think that religion must take a back seat.
Not only that, even without a global crisis there is still separation between church and state. Religion has absolutly zero place in government. It's sickening how the boarder between these two worlds has been pecked away and abused by both the clergy and the politicians.
Of course in reality there is no boarder between politics and organized religion...which is why the Constitution tried to separate them. Western civilization (mostly America) is forgeting the horrible wars fought in the 17th century (and many other centuries) over a fly's hair difference in dogma. And of course while these wars were fought in the name of religion they were actually about power and wealth (as all wars are).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's neither here nor there, but I wouldn't say all wars, though I guess it depends on who you are talking about and which wars. Most of the Crusades were financed by wealthy barons and nobles, many of whom nearly bankrupted themselves in order to finance the expeditions that largely ended in zero material gains for them. Half the time they only returned home because of some native threat to their power base, like a usurper. Very few went to the Levant hoping for power and wealth, and even fewer still actually got it.
Early on the majority of them, and especially the foot soldiers, went out of real fear for their souls. That ebbed a lot over time, and eventually nearly stopped mattering entirely as I guess you could say the wars became a bit traditional, but even in the later crusades you could find Crusading leaders who spent vast sums of money for zero material gains.
Like I said that changes depending on who you look at, because for most of the opposing side, it was really more about land, power and wealth, and for the Byzantines, it was about some of that, but also their very survival.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It may well be that support for a piece of social policy emerges from religious reasons. But in a secular society, it is vital that when making the argument for your position in public, you do not deploy arguments that depend on or invoke religiously-revealed truths. The essential civic discipline in a pluralist democracy is to translate your religious convictions into moral arguments - arguments that can persuade and engage people of all faiths or none. Only a few secularist extremists are saying that people's politics should not be informed in any way by religious faith (an impossibility in any case); most of us anti-Christianists are saying rather that political arguments should not be made on explicitly religious grounds, and political parties should not be allying themselves explicitly with one religion or another.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
I wouldn't really trust an atheist, for the simple reason that his (or hers--whatever) moral compass is entirely internally-generated.
My college roommmate was an atheist, and loved to go on about "see, my values come from WITHIN me, instead of from some old book written hundreds of years ago, so they're, like, more REAL."
My counter to that--namely, "so your values are internal--what's to say you don't get some kind of chemical imbalance that makes you believe murder is okay? it's still internal, so is it still okay?"--was met with a lot of hemming and hawing on his part.
Whether or not Jesus or Mohammad or Buddha or whoever is actually real, the fact that a moral code is based on their teachings--which are documented in writing--lends a certain untractability (sp?) to the whole thing.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
So if I write my internally-generated value system down, does that make it better?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: Whether or not Jesus or Mohammad or Buddha or whoever is actually real, the fact that a moral code is based on their teachings […]
- - - emphasis added - - -
Well, technically, if they aren’t real, then we can’t talk about their teachings…
A.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Though one could discuss the teachings widely attributed to them. I'm not sure there's a point to dismissing a widely followed belief system as it applies to those who believe it because one disagrees with who founded it.
Also, there is historical evidence for all three figures. The question isn't if they are real, it's if they did what they claimed.
If we're only discussing their moral codes, wouldn't it make more sense in this type of discussion to evaluate them as a way to enforce community rights? After all, some folks who would risk jail time to steal what they wanted might hesitate if they thought there would be eternal punishment. While it certainly wouldn't meet last thread's definition of moral maturity, it would produce the desired behavior.
If we go back to times when most people didn't read or have much time away from the fields for deep self-reflection, which ideology makes more sense? Trusting them to carefully consider their own morals or knowing that they'd at least appear to obey a common one?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You know, I used to think as a religious person that it is silly to not vote for an atheist if they held my political positions. Not that there would be very many, if any, conservative atheists on social issues. Then I read the following:
quote:I'd think that what a candidate believes is an important indicator of what sort of judgement that candidate has.
quote:It basically says that, when science and scripture contradict each other, they will choose scripture.
And everyone has the right to have that belief. But I would be hard pressed to vote for someone who thinks that way.
quote:If someone believes the earth is young, then he either is grossly misinformed about science (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country), or is very bad at logical reasoning and argumentation (and thus not someone I want to have heading my country). The person must've come to his conclusion somehow, and all possible ways he might have come to that conclusion are, in my opinion, evidence that he should not be president.
So, I too would immediately disqualify any candidate from my ballot who says they believe in the Bible's literal truth or are a Creationist/Young Earther.
quote:It wouldn't. But we don't live in a vacuum, and I believe that past behavior is one of the best indicators of future behavior.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing any one specific thing, but in this particular case (as I said earlier and as Jhai has expanded on) the blind devotion to something that defies all logical explanation tells me some valuable things about the believer's decision-making process. And those things make me uneasy enough that I wouldn't vote for them.
quote:I realize that people have freedom of speech and are entitled to their opinions, but it never-the-less infuriates me that ANYONE would hold this belief. If on a given point (the value of pi? as an overused example) science and scripture contradict, and you choose to go with scripture, rather than with provable and supportable science... I simply cannot take you seriously, or at least understand you, and anyone falling in this category is summarily dismissed from my consideration of who to vote for.
quote:Although, when the future of the Human race is at stake I would think that religion must take a back seat.
Not only that, even without a global crisis there is still separation between church and state. Religion has absolutly zero place in government. It's sickening how the boarder between these two worlds has been pecked away and abused by both the clergy and the politicians.
Now I would NEVER, no matter what EVER, vote for an atheist. Not only that, but now I think I will fight hard to make sure none are elected. The views held here (and I believe these quotes are representative)about people of faith is just as dangerous to freedom and democracy as a theist trying to make specific religious beliefs pre-requisite for office. I don't care if you would "respect the rights of the religious" because it sure doesn't sound like it from these quotes. It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Though one could discuss the teachings widely attributed to them. I'm not sure there's a point to dismissing a widely followed belief system as it applies to those who believe it because one disagrees with who founded it.
1) We can have discussions about hypothetical situations. 2) No dismissing was suggested. 3) No disagreement with those moral systems was suggested.
quote:Also, there is historical evidence for all three figures. The question isn't if they are real, it's if they did what they claimed.
I personally have no strong motives to think Jesus and other such individuals didn’t exist. What I question (and am skeptic about) is specifically their “source of authority”.
quote:If we're only discussing their moral codes, wouldn't it make more sense in this type of discussion to evaluate them as a way to enforce community rights? After all, some folks who would risk jail time to steal what they wanted might hesitate if they thought there would be eternal punishment. While it certainly wouldn't meet last thread's definition of moral maturity, it would produce the desired behavior.
If we go back to times when most people didn't read or have much time away from the fields for deep self-reflection, which ideology makes more sense? Trusting them to carefully consider their own morals or knowing that they'd at least appear to obey a common one?
Is Human race still so “immature” to need to me moral out of fear? I’d like to think that being moral out of rationality would be preferable.
A.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Now I would NEVER, no matter what EVER, vote for an atheist. Not only that, but now I think I will fight hard to make sure none are elected. The views held here (and I believe these quotes are representative)about people of faith is just as dangerous to freedom and democracy as a theist trying to make specific religious beliefs pre-requisite for office. I don't care if you would "respect the rights of the religious" because it sure doesn't sound like it from these quotes. It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
Right. Because saying you disagree with a group, and wouldn't want them in office is equivalent to saying that you're at war with a group, and want to curtail their freedom & rights, potentially with bullets and bombs.
Question: do you apply these same views to every group you disagree with, or do atheists get special treatment?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
Oh, please. Don't pretend that this is a new thing for you; you've been wanting to shoot an atheist since your first day on this site. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
A, you personally are probably a pretty good person. Any given individual is probably able, with enough reasoning and experimentation, to hammer out a decent belief system. But most people won't. Is it really a bad thing to have a system of laws and religions in place to help people realize right from wrong?
For myself, I find religion to be a wonderful starting point for evaluating morality. Let's be honest, atheists and theists are usually in the same boat when it comes to moral ambiguity. We theists may believe in perfect morality and objective good, but that doesn't mean we recognize it when we see it. We all have to choose our actions with an imperfect understanding of the future results. We're all left trying to do the best we can.
Human nature being what it is, some of us will do better than others. Some folks won't even bother without a reason like jail time or hell fire. I'm in the camp that says let's do what works so those folks aren't impeding society. I'd rather they acted out of a genuine desire to do what's right, but I don't think you're ever going to get a 100% sucess rate on that one. I'll take what I can get.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
TomD., true. But, that is only because I feel they are trying to put me and other people of faith under house arrest. The voices I am hearing today only confirm my fears that much more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The voices I am hearing today only confirm my fears that much more.
And this is why atheists are so afraid of people who hear imaginary voices. Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Occasional, I don't see how any of those quotes you included amount to anything other than people saying "This is why I personally would not vote for someone." Can you explain how you're going from that to your statement below?
quote: It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
That really sounds pretty extreme to me, and I really don't get how you're jumping from "I don't want to vote for someone" to "We're going to have to shoot each other."
--Enigmatic
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: A, you personally are probably a pretty good person. Any given individual is probably able, with enough reasoning and experimentation, to hammer out a decent belief system. But most people won't. Is it really a bad thing to have a system of laws and religions in place to help people realize right from wrong?
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am generally an (over) optimistic person myself when it comes to potential in humans. And rest assured, I do think that having religion as an option for “justifying” moral behavior is a good thing. As you say, the result sometimes justifies the means … Unfortunately, I feel that with religion, we must pay quite a lot (see inter-faith conflicts) for those (partially) good results.
quote:For myself, I find religion to be a wonderful starting point for evaluating morality. Let's be honest, atheists and theists are usually in the same boat when it comes to moral ambiguity. We theists may believe in perfect morality and objective good, but that doesn't mean we recognize it when we see it. We all have to choose our actions with an imperfect understanding of the future results. We're all left trying to do the best we can.
I appreciate your frankness. And I agree on this point with you.
quote:Human nature being what it is, some of us will do better than others. Some folks won't even bother without a reason like jail time or hell fire. I'm in the camp that says let's do what works so those folks aren't impeding society. I'd rather they acted out of a genuine desire to do what's right, but I don't think you're ever going to get a 100% sucess rate on that one. I'll take what I can get.
I think “human nature” is made of curiosity and the ability to learn, that’s why I always vote for education. Explaining someone why they should behave in a certain manner, other than “I say so” or “you’ll burn in a lava pit”, might have surprising results. I always wanted to understand the reasons behind the rules, when I was little. Receiving an explanation made me feel like I was mature enough to be treated as an equal, not a dumb person that couldn’t understand anything. Respect gained by trust is better than respect gained by fear.
A.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would have no problem whatsoever voting for an athesist.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Receiving an explanation made me feel like I was mature enough to be treated as an equal, not a dumb person that couldn’t understand anything.
You and me both. I have no interest in going to a church that isn't explaining stuff as well as helping me behave better.
quote: Respect gained by trust is better than respect gained by fear.
Always. But for the people who never ask questions and just do as they're told (the sheeple I heard them called yesterday in an education discussion), I'm not sure how well that applies. If a person spends all their time on the external by their own choice, is it still a bad thing to have an outside force or two trying to influence their behavior?
There are lots of things people ought to do but few will ever bother with. Deciding how their beliefs influence their morality is certainly up there on the list. I suppose atheists could perform the same function if they formed philosophy clubs and recruited folks to come down and be told how they should behave and why. I think they'd face the exact same issues as churches, though. Not everyone would really mean it, some leaders would skew the message getting it across, freaky cults would spring up and get it all wrong. I think institutions are fairly universal, regardless of their message.
(Though for this to make sense I should mention that my church teaches we should focus our efforts on our relationship with God and not all the external trappings that go with it. Who cares how many years you've gone to Sunday School if none of it ever sank in? You're not doing anyone any favors.)
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Trying to tie in this tangent with the original thread, I have a question:
If an atheist presented their moral system and their justification, and it didn’t enter in conflict (at least at the level of the conclusions) with yours (theist or otherwise), would you still disqualify him/her and not vote for them because of their atheism?
A.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: That really sounds pretty extreme to me, and I really don't get how you're jumping from "I don't want to vote for someone" to "We're going to have to shoot each other."
--Enigmatic
Well said.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: TomD., true. But, that is only because I feel they are trying to put me and other people of faith under house arrest. The voices I am hearing today only confirm my fears that much more.
Really? All they're confirming for me is that you're paranoid and bigoted.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: I wouldn't really trust an atheist, for the simple reason that his (or hers--whatever) moral compass is entirely internally-generated.
But this is just as true of the theist. Quite apart from the issue of whether any given god exists, the choice of following or not following its rules is made internally.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I don't care if you would 'respect the rights of the religious' because it sure doesn't sound like it from these quotes."
While the quotes quoted are far more extremely voiced than I'd use, the underlying theme is one I'd agree with, i.e. I don't want politicians making decisions based solely on scripture. That does not mean I'm against politicians holding or expressing religious beliefs, nor do I expect religious people to set aside those moral codes when making decisions.
I do expect their decisions to be secularly justifiable, and I do not want policies based on interpreted prophecy. And boasting that God stands behind our foreign policy strikes me as a remarkably easy way to align countries of other faiths against us.
I would - and have - voted for an openly religious politician, but never once because of their faith. And faith blindly applied is a dangerous thing in a politician.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To clarify: it doesn't matter a bit to me if a politician votes for a bill to help the homeless out of Christian beliefs of charity, Buddhist beliefs of oneness, or because that politician just wants to do good. Whatever the source of the morality, it all works for me.
It does, however, scare the crap out of me that there may be politicians who decide policy based solely on their church's interpretation of scripture, despite the real needs of their constituents. I want a politician who will forge laws and initiatives based on the realities of the Middle East, and not because he or she thinks that certain steps must be taken to fulfill prophecy.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...not because he or she thinks that certain steps must be taken to fulfill prophecy."
Yeah, I gotta say, I sure hope Bush isn't doing this. Talk about being Cheney's hand puppet. It's not "The Emperor and Vader" it's "The Emperor and Howdy Doody."
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)