PDA

View Full Version : Would you vote for...



Bleda
12-10-2010, 04:24 PM
a non-Christian presidential candidate? Specifically atheist, agnostic or Deist.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 04:35 PM
that would depend on their positions on the issues. If the choice were between to candidates who are nearly identical on the issues - all other things being equal - I'll quite honestly take the Christian over an atheist/agnostic/deist.

djones520
12-10-2010, 04:35 PM
Religion is the last thing I look at when it comes to candidates. I wouldn't blink about it.

Not withstanding the fact that I am an Atheist...

Bleda
12-10-2010, 04:43 PM
that would depend on their positions on the issues. If the choice were between to candidates who are nearly identical on the issues - all other things being equal - I'll quite honestly take the Christian over an atheist/agnostic/deist.

Why?

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 04:44 PM
Why?

why not?

lacarnut
12-10-2010, 04:47 PM
Probably not and if most Athiests were honest they would not vote for a Christian either. However, it would depend on the individual.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 04:51 PM
Probably not and if most Athiests were honest they would not vote for a Christian either. However, it would depend on the individual.

That's my point. Why the 'bigotry' (for lack of a better term) of so many people? If you had a choice between a liberal Democratic devout Christian, and a very conservative atheist/agnostic/Deist, who would you vote for?


why not?

Is that a response? Seriously? :confused:

marv
12-10-2010, 04:54 PM
As an atheist (NOT an Atheist), I'd pay attention to the candidates stance on the issues. However, any over-the-top theist or Atheist is a negative for me.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 04:56 PM
Is that a response? Seriously? :confused:Yes. Given my previous answer - why not? If all other things are equal - then why shouldn't I pick someone who is closer to my beliefs? In the name of honestly I'll tell you that I would prolly vote for the atheist over a mormon or a JW or most especially a westboro baptist.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 05:01 PM
Yes. Given my previous answer - why not? If all other things are equal - then why shouldn't I pick someone who is closer to my beliefs? In the name of honestly I'll tell you that I would prolly vote for the atheist over a mormon or a JW or most especially a westboro baptist.

I see. But if they are the same, both personally and politically, but not religiously, what difference does it make? Wouldn't it be, in that case, like choosing someone who likes the same football team? I don't see the big deal.

This whole question is unrealistic, though. Odds are, no two candidates will have the exact same positions on every issue. Let's assume the devout Christian is somewhat to the left of the atheist/agnostic/Deist. Who would you all vote for?

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 05:05 PM
Probably not and if most Athiests were honest they would not vote for a Christian either. However, it would depend on the individual.

Not so, in my experience. I have voted for religious candidates, all of them Christians. And I am quite honest about it.

Bailey
12-10-2010, 05:06 PM
I would never vote for a atheist wither he/she had a R or D next to their name.

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:08 PM
the fact of the matter is this: most people, atheist or christian or hindu or muslim, choose their worldview for non-rational reasons.

while atheism is the most rational position, it is not a given that any particular atheist came to his atheism for rational reasons. any individual atheist is not guaranteed to be more rational or more capable than some individual religious person.

so all other things being equal, would i vote for the atheist? that depends on *why* he is an atheist. if he tells me that the problem of evil dissuades him, or something along those lines, great, sure! if he tells me he's an atheist because he met a mean priest once... not so much.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 05:09 PM
Let's assume the devout Christian is somewhat to the left of the atheist/agnostic/Deist. Who would you all vote for?

Now that is a good question, and a well-phrased one at that.

lacarnut
12-10-2010, 05:09 PM
That's my point. Why the 'bigotry' (for lack of a better term) of so many people? If you had a choice between a liberal Democratic devout Christian, and a very conservative atheist/agnostic/Deist, who would you vote for?





I definitely would not vote for the liberal Democrat because his policies are diametrically opposed to mine. Being an atheist would not be a deal breaker but it would certainly be a negative. So, if he was right on the issues that I support, the conservative would probably get my vote.

I answered your question. Now you answer your own question. Who would you vote for and why?

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:11 PM
I would never vote for a atheist wither he/she had a R or D next to their name.

yep - atheists are even worse off than homosexuals in politics. that's why many politicians simply pretend to be religious, to manipulate people like you.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 05:12 PM
Not so, in my experience. I have voted for religious candidates, all of them Christians. And I am quite honest about it.

Well, he did say 'most.' And I'm pretty sure most atheist voters vote for Christians (or people who say they're Christian, I guess). How many self-identified Christian Democrats won the atheist vote?

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 05:13 PM
I would never vote for a atheist wither he/she had a R or D next to their name.

Never? You surprise me.

Bailey
12-10-2010, 05:13 PM
yep - atheists are even worse off than homosexuals in politics. that's why many politicians simply pretend to be religious, to manipulate people like you.

Wrong again oh worshiper of the flawed human...

Bleda
12-10-2010, 05:13 PM
I answered your question. Now you answer your own question. Who would you vote for and why?

Me? Religious beliefs (or lack thereof) wouldn't even be an issue, unless it's Islam we're talking about. ;)

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:16 PM
Wrong again oh worshiper of the flawed human...

lol.... "worshiper of the flawed human"... gobbledygook

which part is wrong, then - that politicians pretend to be religious, or that you can successfully be manipulated in that way?

lacarnut
12-10-2010, 05:17 PM
Not so, in my experience. I have voted for religious candidates, all of them Christians. And I am quite honest about it.

Well, you are a diamond in the rough.:) Plus, it rather hard to find a politician that is an athiest cause their numbers are very low (around 15% in the US).

Bailey
12-10-2010, 05:18 PM
But people like wilbur were taking advantage of by people like Clinton, who after going to church on a Sunday with his ten pound bible would cheat on his wife with a chubby intern.


Nope I can make up my own mind thank you.

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:21 PM
But people like wilbur were taking advantage of by people like Clinton, who after going to church on a Sunday with his ten pound bible would cheat on his wife with a chubby intern.

Nope I can make up my own mind thank you.

huh?

#1 - i wasnt old enough to vote in the clinton election

#2 - i prefer if when my politicians fake their religion, rather than seriously profess it.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 05:21 PM
Well, he did say 'most.' And I'm pretty sure most atheist voters vote for Christians (or people who say they're Christian, I guess). How many self-identified Christian Democrats won the atheist vote?

Fair comment.

In response, I would have to say that my voting decisions would be predicated on the intensity of fervour of each candidate's religious belief, or at least, my perception of their enthusiasm for their stated belief system.

For example, any candidate holding a literal creationist viewpoint appropriate to the scripture of their particular religion, whatever that might be, would be very unlikely to get my vote.

Reasonably domesticated religious believers would be more acceptable to me and would be considered as potentially electable, dependent of course, on their policy positions.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 05:22 PM
Well, you are a diamond in the rough.:) Plus, it rather hard to find a politician that is an athiest cause their numbers are very low (around 15% in the US).

I think there's a slight “stigma” associated with atheists, thanks to the “New Atheists'” pathological desire to mock and attack all things religious, so you have a lot of atheist politicians who are publicly religious.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 05:25 PM
Fair comment.
For example, any candidate holding a literal creationist viewpoint appropriate to the scripture of their particular religion, whatever that might be, would be very unlikely to get my vote.

Are you talking about evolution, or other [religious] issues as well?

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:26 PM
I think there's a slight “stigma” associated with atheists, thanks to the “New Atheists'” pathological desire to mock and attack all things religious, so you have a lot of atheist politicians who are publicly religious.

that stigma was there regardless, bleda.

the consistent refrain from religion for centuries has been that the atheist is evil, immoral, and has no reason to be otherwise and that you can't trust the atheist, because when no one is looking, he has no reason to do good, if doing evil is to his advantage.

that is why atheists are unpopular, and remain so. it has nothing to do with new atheism, which actually has done a lot of good in combating the stigma against atheism, in my opinion.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-10-2010, 05:27 PM
a non-Christian presidential candidate? Specifically atheist, agnostic or Deist.

For me, it is ENTIRELY an issues issue.

If they agree with the majority of my viewpoints and have the character and leadership to advance those views, then yes I would.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 05:31 PM
I see. But if they are the same, both personally and politically, but not religiously, what difference does it make? Wouldn't it be, in that case, like choosing someone who likes the same football team? I don't see the big deal.

This whole question is unrealistic, though. Odds are, no two candidates will have the exact same positions on every issue. Let's assume the devout Christian is somewhat to the left of the atheist/agnostic/Deist. Who would you all vote for?

The big deal is that when two people share a faith - they have a way of seeing things from a similar if not the same point of view.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 05:31 PM
I think there's a slight “stigma” associated with atheists, thanks to the “New Atheists'” pathological desire to mock and attack all things religious, so you have a lot of atheist politicians who are publicly religious.

And that's a shame, and it's not as slight as you think, and it is a major flaw in the American electoral environment, if I may say so.

I would not run for high office if doing so meant that I would have to conceal my atheism in order to have a chance of being elected.

At present, it looks to me as if it would be very difficult if not impossible, for anyone willing or foolish enough to declare as an atheist, to be elected to the US presidency.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 05:34 PM
Yeah sure it makes no difference to me what their personal relationship with God is.

What matters to me is how they perceive their job and how well they execute said job.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 05:36 PM
If it mattered and I was picking someone of a specific religion to be a public official I would want a Martin Luther King style Christian.

I feel that Christianity with alternative conceptions of God (like Paul Tillich's conception of God, which MLK wrote his dissertation on) best describes the human condition today and seeks to solve problems both of the individual and the community through Faith and close interpersonal relationships.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 05:43 PM
it has nothing to do with new atheism, which actually has done a lot of good in combating the stigma against atheism, in my opinion.

I don't think so. When every atheist you hear about is a "New Atheist" putting up a sign insulting Christians (http://www.boingboing.net/images/_cnn_2008_LIVING_12_05_atheists.christmas_art.athe ist.sign.olympia.jpg), or 'de-baptizing (http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/92551415_atheists-use-blow-dryers-to-de-baptize.htm)' themselves with blow dryers, or making a play (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/25/texas-town-cross-plays-gay-christ/) about gay Jesus and pals, etc. it does nothing to better the image of the average atheist.


The big deal is that when two people share a faith - they have a way of seeing things from a similar if not the same point of view.

What things are those?

Bailey
12-10-2010, 05:46 PM
If it mattered and I was picking someone of a specific religion to be a public official I would want a Martin Luther King style Christian.

I feel that Christianity with alternative conceptions of God (like Paul Tillich's conception of God, which MLK wrote his dissertation on) best describes the human condition today and seeks to solve problems both of the individual and the community through Faith and close interpersonal relationships.

In other words you're more of a salvation through works kind of guy? You'd vote for someone who pulls stuff out of the bible saying its ok even godly to take(Gov taxes) from the rich and give to the poor?(walfare handouts)

Bailey
12-10-2010, 05:54 PM
huh?

#1 - i wasnt old enough to vote in the clinton election

#2 - i prefer if when my politicians fake their religion, rather than seriously profess it.

I am saying I make up my own mind on who i am going to vote for. I wasn't fooled by Clinton just because he said he was a Christian so save me your sanctimonious bullshit.


I am not going to entertain voting for anyone who doesn't have a strong grounding in the Lord and you ask how will i know that? Prayer and (I'm paraphrasing here) You shall know them by the fruits of their works. People like sharpton and Jessie arent christians because their works are very un-christian. (pro abortion, blackmailing corporations for donations to their causes) etc

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:55 PM
I don't think so. When every atheist you hear about is a "New Atheist" putting up a sign insulting Christians (http://www.boingboing.net/images/_cnn_2008_LIVING_12_05_atheists.christmas_art.athe ist.sign.olympia.jpg), or 'de-baptizing (http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/92551415_atheists-use-blow-dryers-to-de-baptize.htm)' themselves with blow dryers, or making a play (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/25/texas-town-cross-plays-gay-christ/) about gay Jesus and pals, etc. it does nothing to better the image of the average atheist.


many of those things arent strictly "new atheist" events. homosexual rebellion against x-tianity exists regardless, (because x-tianity is the domestic sworn enemy of homosexuality), for example.

but the biggest problem is, i don't think it was actually possible for popular opinion of atheist to actually get any lower. it simply can't - it was at the bottom already. about the only way you could be less popular was to sleep with one of your siblings or children.

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:57 PM
I am saying I make up my own mind on who i am going to vote for. I wasn't fooled by Clinton just because he said he was a Christian so save me your sanctimonious bullshit.

I am not going to entertain voting for anyone who doesn't have a strong grounding in the Lord and you ask how will i know that? Prayer and (I'm paraphrasing here) You shall know them by the fruits of their works. People like sharpton and Jessie arent christians because their works are very un-christian. (pro abortion, blackmailing corporations for donations to their causes) etc

gotcha - magical incantations will give you all the answers you need!

Bleda
12-10-2010, 06:01 PM
many of those things arent strictly "new atheist" events. homosexual rebellion against x-tianity exists regardless, (because x-tianity is the domestic sworn enemy of homosexuality), for example.

but the biggest problem is, i don't think it was actually possible for popular opinion of atheist to actually get any lower. it simply can't - it was at the bottom already. about the only way you could be less popular was to sleep with one of your siblings or children.

Once again, I disagree. If all atheists were like this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-19-atheism-belief_N.htm), not many people would have a problem with them.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 06:03 PM
I don't think so. When every atheist you hear about is a "New Atheist" putting up a sign insulting Christians (http://www.boingboing.net/images/_cnn_2008_LIVING_12_05_atheists.christmas_art.athe ist.sign.olympia.jpg), or 'de-baptizing (http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/92551415_atheists-use-blow-dryers-to-de-baptize.htm)' themselves with blow dryers, or making a play (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/25/texas-town-cross-plays-gay-christ/) about gay Jesus and pals, etc. it does nothing to better the image of the average atheist.

I agree, but one should perhaps consider that this may be as much yet another failure in MSM reportage as a valid representation of so called New Atheism.

And this very silly interpretation (http://www.conservapedia.com/Neo-atheism)is not only confined to the MSM.

Glory be (glory be, :rolleyes:). I'd almost forgotten about conservapedia.com.

lacarnut
12-10-2010, 06:07 PM
And that's a shame, and it's not as slight as you think, and it is a major flaw in the American electoral environment, if I may say so.

I would not run for high office if doing so meant that I would have to conceal my atheism in order to have a chance of being elected.

At present, it looks to me as if it would be very difficult if not impossible, for anyone willing or foolish enough to declare as an atheist, to be elected to the US presidency.

Baloney. Liberal Democrats that are in bed with the ACLU don't seem to have a problem getting elected. The left and west coast is crawling with non believers in universities, politics and yes religion. Plus, there is a hell of a lot more anti-religious zealots in this country than the other way around. Consequently, there is little stigmatise associated with being an atheist in my opinion.

Bailey
12-10-2010, 06:12 PM
gotcha - magical incantations will give you all the answers you need!


You betcha!!!!

Bleda
12-10-2010, 06:13 PM
I agree, but one should perhaps consider that this may be as much yet another failure in MSM reportage as a valid representation of so called New Atheism.

And this very silly interpretation (http://www.conservapedia.com/Neo-atheism)is not only confined to the MSM.

Glory be (glory be, :rolleyes:). I'd almost forgotten about conservapedia.com.

Well, most moderate, sane atheists are busy living their lives. Those who have time for activism just happen to be the 'not nice' type of atheists, so the nice atheists get less attention.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 06:31 PM
Baloney. Liberal Democrats that are in bed with the ACLU don't seem to have a problem getting elected. The left and west coast is crawling with non believers in universities, politics and yes religion. Plus, there is a hell of a lot more anti-religious zealots in this country than the other way around. Consequently, there is little stigmatise associated with being an atheist in my opinion.

I used to think so too, and would like it if it was true. But (http://people-press.org/reports/images/358-1.gif)...

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 06:38 PM
Well, most moderate, sane atheists are busy living their lives. Those who have time for activism just happen to be the 'not nice' type of atheists, so the nice atheists get less attention.

I don't think it's possible to be a moderate atheist, any more than it's possible to be slightly pregnant, or to be slightly dead.

One either is, or is not an atheist. The decision really is one of life's binary switches.

OK, there is the dull, uncommitted and lazy third way of agnosticism, but agnosticism is just another way of saying, "I'll get around to thinking about it one of these days, maybe". Agnosticism is not a position, it's a cop-out.

I am somewhat of an activist, if being an activist means that I'm prepared to express my viewpoint. I claim that right.

But I still think I'm a nice atheist.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 06:46 PM
Heh, by moderate I meant not crazy or militant. ;)

And Agnosticism is basically 'I don't know whether a god exists or not', which is all we know. 'God doesn't exist' is a belief, same as “God exists.” Is your definition of atheism 'a lack of belief in a god' or 'a belief that no god exists'?

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 06:55 PM
In other words you're more of a salvation through works kind of guy?

No, i'm more of a salvation through faith kind of guy but salvation through faith leads to good works; the path to truly good works rather than naively misguided works is the path of faith; and once a person is saved, the good works they do are not their own actions, but the holy spirit being allowed to work through them.


You'd vote for someone who pulls stuff out of the bible saying its ok even godly to take(Gov taxes) from the rich and give to the poor?(walfare handouts)

I want people to, as a society, give to the poor - or better yet, to make decisions which alleviate the causes of poverty, rather than trying to bandage up the wounds after the fact. The state is simply an instrument for the will of the (multiple) people, like I believe (individual) people should allow themselves to be instruments for the loving will of God.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 07:01 PM
People today seem so obsessed with ME ME ME. Everyone is 100% focused on themselves, and hate anything that doesn't benefit them directly or somehow add to their sense of self. It's a plague on the soul. I do believe that our own egos are our primary obstacle to the saving grace of God in daily life.

lacarnut
12-10-2010, 07:10 PM
I used to think so too, and would like it if it was true. But (http://people-press.org/reports/images/358-1.gif)...

Whose fault do you think that is? When the ACLU forces a school or a small city to shut down a religious theme or the mere mention of anything religious or if a football team is not allowed to say a silent prayer and if liberal courts agree, it becomes an issue for a lot of people. The ACLU picks on small towns knowing that they can not fight back because of legal cost. Do you think that is right? If atheists would live and let live, I think atheism would be more acceptable and their favor-ability would rise. Most Americans do not like shit shoved down their throat just because one dickhead is offended.

Bleda
12-10-2010, 07:12 PM
Whose fault do you think that is? When the ACLU forces a school or a small city to shut down a religious theme or the mere mention of anything religious or if a football team is not allowed to say a silent prayer and if liberal courts agree, it becomes an issue for a lot of people. The ACLU picks on small towns knowing that they can not fight back because of legal cost. Do you think that is right? If atheists would live and let live, I think atheism would be more acceptable and their favor-ability would rise. Most Americans do not like shit shoved down their throat just because one dickhead is offended.

If you read my posts in this thread, you'll find this is exactly what I'm saying.

Rockntractor
12-10-2010, 07:42 PM
I would vote for a heathen if he had common sense and wasn't a democrat. I would never vote for a muzzie, even if I agreed with it on all issues.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 07:47 PM
People today seem so obsessed with ME ME ME. Everyone is 100% focused on themselves, and hate anything that doesn't benefit them directly or somehow add to their sense of self. It's a plague on the soul. I do believe that our own egos are our primary obstacle to the saving grace of God in daily life.

You really are quite a religious little fellow, aren't you.

This really is one of your more daft posts, as bonkers a diatribe against humanity and for belief in the supernatural as any I've ever seen.

PoliCon
12-10-2010, 07:51 PM
I want people to, as a society, give to the poor - or better yet, to make decisions which alleviate the causes of poverty, rather than trying to bandage up the wounds after the fact. The state is simply an instrument for the will of the (multiple) people, like I believe (individual) people should allow themselves to be instruments for the loving will of God.

Then let them give VOLUNTARILY. Stop trying to force people to do what you want.

Rockntractor
12-10-2010, 07:55 PM
You really are quite a religious little fellow, aren't you.

This really is one of your more daft posts, as bonkers a diatribe against humanity and for belief in the supernatural as any I've ever seen.

His roommate is using his account.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 08:00 PM
His roommate is using his account.

It does look a bit as if the one is channelling the other. Strange.

FeebMaster
12-10-2010, 10:17 PM
No way.

NJCardFan
12-10-2010, 11:02 PM
It depends really. I would no more vote for a raging atheist as I would an evangelical Christian(Pat Robertson type). One extreme is as bad as the other.

Lager
12-11-2010, 04:40 PM
The state is simply an instrument for the will of the (multiple) people

No. It's not, nor should it be. The state is run by majority rule, for the most part. At one time a majority believed that slavery was justified. You naively look at the state as being the depository of the benevolence of members of society. The state actually has a greater chance of causing harm collectively, than it does of doing good things collectively. That is one of the reasons why the founders believed in limited powers.

Wei Wu Wei
12-11-2010, 05:04 PM
No. It's not, nor should it be. The state is run by majority rule, for the most part. At one time a majority believed that slavery was justified.

only if you refuse to count slaves.


You naively look at the state as being the depository of the benevolence of members of society. The state actually has a greater chance of causing harm collectively, than it does of doing good things collectively. That is one of the reasons why the founders believed in limited powers.

I think that if we elect people who are dedicated to serving the people, and we remain informed about their actions and vote based on reason rather than insults or fear, that we could have a responsible Government.

We can never have a Government of the people and by the people if the people view the government as the enemy.

As for this talking point that "private sector always does everything better than government". That is simply not true. The private sector generates profits best, but that doesn't mean it is always the best in terms of solving problems.

Examples of projects that were undertaken by the Government rather than the Free Market:

The Manhattan Project - created LOTS of jobs and undertook one of the most amazing technological feats in a very short time and eventually defeated the Japanese Empire

The Internet - made possible through government-funded communications projects from the US and the Soviet Union

Satellite Communication - made possible by heavy government funding in the Soviet Union, perfected through government funding in the USA

Human Genome Project - As genetic medicine advances, the human genome project may go down as one of the major turning points in the history of humanity, and it was only possible through the collective efforts of multiple governments.

The National Highway System - revolutionized transportation in the USA and made the suburbs a possibility

Countless research developments used in every day life funded by NASA research

Countless domestic infrastructure projects that are still in use today which created much needed work during the depression.


Believe it or not, greed isn't the only motivating factor for people. Some people genuinly want to solve the worlds problems because they feel it needs to be done. It is a myth that only the free market can improve society.

More clear example: Stalinist Russia and Maoist China

Now, no one is advocating that we follow the path that they did, but the fact of the matter is that Russia and China were poor agrarian societies with little industrial development and through extreme government intervention they turned their countries around nearly 180 degrees in extremely short periods of time. China and Russia have both rivaled the USA in growth and power, and China is looking to overtake us economically. Their chosen path wasn't the best, it trampled on the rights of the people and it's not the one I want, but it proves that this hardline approach of ONLY FREE MARKETS AND NOTHING ELSE CAN CAUSE DEVELOPMENT is simply naive.

linda22003
12-11-2010, 05:04 PM
Not so, in my experience. I have voted for religious candidates, all of them Christians. And I am quite honest about it.

Hamp, are you old enough to remember Malcolm Muggeridge? He voted in one parliamentary election for a man who had been in a mental hospital at one time, because the man was released and had a Certificate of Sanity, which no other politician could boast. :)

Wei Wu Wei
12-11-2010, 05:08 PM
His roommate is using his account.

My religious beliefs are my own, I don't know why you prefer to think that isn't me posting but if that helps you sleep at night feel free to tell everyone that I worship Aqua Buddha.

megimoo
12-11-2010, 05:11 PM
Religion is the last thing I look at when it comes to candidates. I wouldn't blink about it.

Not withstanding the fact that I am an Atheist...He says with some pride..Now how did I Instinctively know that ?

hampshirebrit
12-11-2010, 06:13 PM
Hamp, are you old enough to remember Malcolm Muggeridge? He voted in one parliamentary election for a man who had been in a mental hospital at one time, because the man was released and had a Certificate of Sanity, which no other politician could boast. :)

I certainly am. I even met people who knew him quite well, when I was younger.

He crossed the line from being an agnostic to becoming a Catholic, a big mistake, in my view, obviously. For all that, and by most accounts, he was a decent chap.

NJCardFan
12-11-2010, 09:56 PM
huh?

#1 - i wasnt old enough to vote in the clinton election

#2 - i prefer if when my politicians fake their religion, rather than seriously profess it.

You mean like Al Gore?:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
12-11-2010, 10:15 PM
Once again, I disagree. If all atheists were like this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-19-atheism-belief_N.htm), not many people would have a problem with them.

This is akin to radical Islam. All you hear is that not all Muslims are like that, however, "mainstream Muslims" are rarely if ever heard bemoaning terrorism. Well, we see people desecrating Christian symbols or icons yet "mainstream atheists" are not only rarely if ever bemoaning these actions, many are often chuckling along with the perpetrators of the sacrilege. And here's a question to our resident atheists, why don't atheists ever desecrate Islamic symbols or icons? All I ever see are Judeo-Christian icons and symbols being desecrated or mocked. Don't you people have the balls to poke fun at Islam? Is it because that a Muslim will probably cut your nuts off if you do so? Something tells me this is the case because Christians or Jews are unlikely to retaliate in that way.


I want people to, as a society, give to the poor - or better yet, to make decisions which alleviate the causes of poverty,
What a crock of shit this statement is. How about the poor do something about their situation? I saw a great quote today: "If you can afford cigarettes and booze then you aren't poor."

Rockntractor
12-11-2010, 10:37 PM
My religious beliefs are my own, I don't know why you prefer to think that isn't me posting but if that helps you sleep at night feel free to tell everyone that I worship Aqua Buddha.

Aqua Buddha saves.

Bleda
12-12-2010, 10:21 AM
This is akin to radical Islam. All you hear is that not all Muslims are like that, however, "mainstream Muslims" are rarely if ever heard bemoaning terrorism. Well, we see people desecrating Christian symbols or icons yet "mainstream atheists" are not only rarely if ever bemoaning these actions, many are often chuckling along with the perpetrators of the sacrilege. And here's a question to our resident atheists, why don't atheists ever desecrate Islamic symbols or icons? All I ever see are Judeo-Christian icons and symbols being desecrated or mocked. Don't you people have the balls to poke fun at Islam? Is it because that a Muslim will probably cut your nuts off if you do so? Something tells me this is the case because Christians or Jews are unlikely to retaliate in that way.

Because most of the militant, activist atheists are spoiled children (mentally childish, that is) rebelling against society's or their parents' beliefs. They'll mock Christianity and Judaism but not Islam, because they know the former will put up with their crap while the latter might actually hurt them. Most irreligious people really have no need to condemn them, since we're not in the same group, no more than non-Twilight fans need to condemn terrorists who also happen not to like Twilight.

And what the fruck are you talking about with the bolded part? I oppose Islam more than you do, probably.

NJCardFan
12-12-2010, 10:30 AM
Because most of the militant, activist atheists are spoiled children (mentally childish, that is) rebelling against society's or their parents' beliefs. They'll mock Christianity and Judaism but not Islam, because they know the former will put up with their crap while the latter might actually hurt them. Most irreligious people really have no need to condemn them, since we're not in the same group, no more than non-Twilight fans need to condemn terrorists who also happen not to like Twilight.

And what the fruck are you talking about with the bolded part? I oppose Islam more than you do, probably.

For starters, I highly doubt that but poking fun on a message board means nothing. How about openly mocking Islam like making a crescent moon out of elephant dung or depicting Muhammad sucking cock or something akin to what anti-Christians have no problem doing. Have some scrote. Make a picture of Muhammad fucking a camel and stand in front of a mosque and let me know what happens. Until I see that, atheists are nothing more than a bunch of anti-Christian bigots. Hey, if you're going to mock religion, mock all of them. Fling feces at an effigy of Shiva while you're at it. Be all inclusive.

Bleda
12-12-2010, 11:00 AM
For starters, I highly doubt that but poking fun on a message board means nothing. How about openly mocking Islam like making a crescent moon out of elephant dung or depicting Muhammad sucking cock or something akin to what anti-Christians have no problem doing. Have some scrote. Make a picture of Muhammad fucking a camel and stand in front of a mosque and let me know what happens. Until I see that, atheists are nothing more than a bunch of anti-Christian bigots. Hey, if you're going to mock religion, mock all of them. Fling feces at an effigy of Shiva while you're at it. Be all inclusive.

Why would I waste my time publicly mocking Islam or Christianity or any religion in real life? What would that accomplish? Sorry, I'm not that pathetic.

And I love how you say 'atheists' instead of 'atheists who do this', as if they're all the same. You do know atheism isn't a religion, don't you? A lot of atheists do act as if it's a religion, treating Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest like prophets and believing everything they say is undeniable gospel, but that doesn't make it a religion or anything other than (depending on what kind of atheism it is) a lack of belief in a god or a belief that no god exists. That's a far cry from “anti-Christian bigotry”, unless you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically bigoted against you. Who does that remind me of? Oh yes... Muslims. :rolleyes: