Rubio vs. Athiest

[Skull Pilot]

Rubio answered the questioner by saying he respected the guy's right to be a non-believer. The questioner seemed to have impression that Rubio, by telling of his base beliefs through a media ad, somehow interfered with those of his own.

Rubio would have done himself a favor had he stopped there. But he went on to reveal the real problem. If Rubio really believes what he claimed I don't see how we can trust him to protect our rights, or to protect the country in the face of mortal threat.

He claimed rights "come from God", and don't exist without one ("If there's no creator, then where do your rights come from?"). That's a misunderstanding of the concept of inalienable rights that hangs perilously on Rubio's faith. If he loses his faith he would, apparently, have no qualms in using government to violate our rights.

He also was very clear that his main priority is the afterlife. For those of us who don't believe in the Christian version of the afterlife, it means he'll be focused on a fantasy rather than giving his full attention to the duties of the Presidency.

That's how Rubio's believes, as he represented them, interfere with the values and well-being of anyone who doesn't share them.

Dumb post. Many Christians have served in leadership roles but haven't tried to take anyone's religious freedom away or impose it on you. The questioner was on your level and trying to make a non issue and issue. You have it ass backwards. The fact that he believes he will be accountable for his actions for all of eternity means he will be focused on doing the right thing, not lining his pockets with gold or whatever.

If you are an anti-Christian bigot, and it sounds like you are, he wasn't getting your vote anyway. Or the asshole's in the video.

Is fear of Hell the only reason you have morals, such as they are?

No there's also the desire for a reward

It's greed and fear, the 2 greatest motivators of the human species, that have been used by religion to control the flock

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have no intention of watching the video. but no potential president should make religion part of his campaign.

You're afraid to watch Rubio Christian answer to an atheist's question after you elected a muslim to be president? This is why prog morons shouldn't be allowed to vote....ever.

afraid? er... no. I have no reason to.

no presidential candidate should make religion an issue. that's prohibited by the constitution.

aside from the fact that the president isn't a muslim, I don't care what religion anyone has or no religion at all so long as they don't try to enact it into law like the radical religious right keeps trying to.

No it's not prohibited to talk about religion or make it an issue. What is prohibited is the government establishing a religion.

What kind of an attorney are you that you don't understand the Constitution?

One who knows you haven't a clue.

You Don't understand the Constitution and I'm the one that hasn't a clue?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hopefully you're a defense lawyer. We need to get as many convictions as possible.

 

[easyt65]

Atheists don't believe in God. Got it. Then why are they obsessed with God and have made it a personal goal to attack religion and other people's choice to believe?

I don't believe in Leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, Chupacabras, or big foot, but I don't go around attacking and disparaging anyone who does. I don't attack their faith. I don't care if they put up signs, put out Easter baskets, etc. I ignore it. Seeing, hearing others profess their belief in them doesn't bother me because I know (my beliefs) they don't exist, and something that doesn't exist doesn't bother me.

Choosing not to believe is not good enough for Liberals / Atheists, though. They have made it a goal to attack / disparage anyone who does believe, to strip every sight / sound of one's CHRISTIAN belief from the public. Christians can't voluntarily pray before a high school football game. Players can't point at the sky in thanks to God. No prayer in schools and at the workplace is frowned upon / 'attacked'...yet prayer rugs are provided to Muslims, criticism of their religion is avoided at all costs so as not to 'offend' THEM. The hypocrisy of Liberals and atheists in regards to the 2 different religions is incredible. Where is the demand that prayer rugs be removed from the public - 'Do it in your own house if you want' (something I have heard Libs say to/about Christians and prayer).

But, again, why do atheists feel the need to attack, disparage, and eliminate any and all references to something they do not believe in? Are they that 'threatened' by something that 'doesn't exist'? And if a God doesn't exist, where is their equal reactions to / treatment towards Muslims? It just seems to me that Atheists don't have as much of a problem with 'religion' as they do with Christians and Christianity.

 

[dblack]

You "now know" nothing of he sort. You're pulling assumptions out of your vacuous ass and flinging them against the wall. Please clean up after yourself when you're done.

I cleaned you up. You thought you were slick but the bigotry rolled off your keyboard mighty quick.

No, it didn't. I've expressed no bigotry whatsoever - other than an intolerance for idiot fucks like yourself.

Wrong. You can't stand a person who has a religious belief. You made it clear. You fooled no one.

Prove it, maggot. You're the only person in this thread I can't stand, and you're not religious, remember? Seriously - back up your cowardly accusation with a quote displaying my supposed hatred for religious people. You won't find one. Then come back here and kiss my ass with your apology.

You forgot already? You said:

"He also was very clear that his main priority is the afterlife. For those of us who don't believe in the Christian version of the afterlife, it means he'll be focused on a fantasy rather than giving his full attention to the duties of the Presidency."

So now you're pretending you have no problem with a religious person. You don't know that he'll be unfocused on the job, you assume so because you're a BIGOT.

From the point of view of someone who doesn't share Rubio's vision of the afterlife, it is a fantasy. That's not bigotry, disrespect, nor intolerance. I've voted for Christians, when they share my political convictions, and I will continue to do so, but I won't support anyone who puts their religion above their political when performing the duties of elected office.

Now, apologize and we can continue the discussion free of ad hominem diversions

 

[Iceweasel]

I cleaned you up. You thought you were slick but the bigotry rolled off your keyboard mighty quick.

No, it didn't. I've expressed no bigotry whatsoever - other than an intolerance for idiot fucks like yourself.

Wrong. You can't stand a person who has a religious belief. You made it clear. You fooled no one.

Prove it, maggot. You're the only person in this thread I can't stand, and you're not religious, remember? Seriously - back up your cowardly accusation with a quote displaying my supposed hatred for religious people. You won't find one. Then come back here and kiss my ass with your apology.

You forgot already? You said:

"He also was very clear that his main priority is the afterlife. For those of us who don't believe in the Christian version of the afterlife, it means he'll be focused on a fantasy rather than giving his full attention to the duties of the Presidency."

So now you're pretending you have no problem with a religious person. You don't know that he'll be unfocused on the job, you assume so because you're a BIGOT.

From the point of view of someone who doesn't share Rubio's vision of the afterlife, it is a fantasy. That's not bigotry, disrespect, nor intolerance. I've voted for Christians, when they share my political convictions, and I will continue to do so, but I won't support anyone who puts their religion above their political when performing the duties of elected office.

Now, apologize and we can continue the discussion free of ad hominem diversions

"He also was very clear that his main priority is the afterlife. For those of us who don't believe in the Christian version of the afterlife, it means he'll be focused on a fantasy rather than giving his full attention to the duties of the Presidency."

No sale. I don't apologize to lying bigoted assholes. You made it clear that his religious belief means that he will not be focused on the job. All Christians believe in an afterlife and YOU decided to make it an issue, not me.

 

[easyt65]

dblack, it is your choice to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want and NOT to vote for anyone for any reason you have.

In most cases, personally, I would trust someone who put their (most of their) religious convictions before their political agendas / goals more than the other way around. Christianity TEACHES (yet is not always followed) loving others, putting others 1st, doing what's right, etc... while we have seen the corruption, deceit, lies, lack of morals and integrity, etc that result from personal political agendas, goals, decisions. Not always, just in most cases. We have several hundred career politicians whose personal / party political goals have trumped religious values, and in the midst of their scandals, lies, and crime the American people have been betrayed, screwed, and have suffered. At the same time there have been many religious 'leaders' / people who have been corrupted and engaged in some of the same activity. It usually depends on the person, their own foundation, and the circumstances.

Bottom line - your choice / right to do so. I have spent a lifetime ensuring you have that right. Keep it up.

 

[jillian]

I have no intention of watching the video. but no potential president should make religion part of his campaign.

You're afraid to watch Rubio Christian answer to an atheist's question after you elected a muslim to be president? This is why prog morons shouldn't be allowed to vote....ever.

afraid? er... no. I have no reason to.

no presidential candidate should make religion an issue. that's prohibited by the constitution.

aside from the fact that the president isn't a muslim, I don't care what religion anyone has or no religion at all so long as they don't try to enact it into law like the radical religious right keeps trying to.

No it's not prohibited to talk about religion or make it an issue. What is prohibited is the government establishing a religion.

What kind of an attorney are you that you don't understand the Constitution?

One who knows you haven't a clue.

You Don't understand the Constitution and I'm the one that hasn't a clue?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hopefully you're a defense lawyer. We need to get as many convictions as possible.

YOU don't understand how the Constitution has been construed by the Court. That is the only meaning necessary. And the Court has repeatedly held that government can't impose a religion on its people.

 

[dblack]

dblack, it is your choice to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want and NOT to vote for anyone for any reason you have.

In most cases, personally, I would trust someone who put their (most of their) religious convictions before their political agendas / goals more than the other way around. Christianity TEACHES (yet is not always followed) loving others, putting others 1st, doing what's right, etc... while we have seen the corruption, deceit, lies, lack of morals and integrity, etc that result from personal political agendas, goals, decisions. Not always, just in most cases. We have several hundred career politicians whose personal / party political goals have trumped religious values, and in the midst of their scandals, lies, and crime the American people have been betrayed, screwed, and have suffered. At the same time there have been many religious 'leaders' / people who have been corrupted and engaged in some of the same activity. It usually depends on the person, their own foundation, and the circumstances.

Bottom line - your choice / right to do so. I have spent a lifetime ensuring you have that right. Keep it up.

What really raised a flag for me was his comment "Without God, where do your rights come from?", which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of inalienable rights. It's essentially no different than liberals who claim rights "come from government". Rubio doesn't get that inalienable freedoms are an innate byproduct of free will, regardless of how we were created. That's dumb, and dangerous, and not a view I'd want to see represented in the White House.

 

[Theowl32]

I liked this debate between Maher and this Christian. He tried his arrogant cynicism and of course supported by the sycophants in the audience with the panel all mockingly laughing.



At the end of the debate, it was rather obvious Maher had respect for the answers.

 

[jillian]

dblack, it is your choice to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want and NOT to vote for anyone for any reason you have.

In most cases, personally, I would trust someone who put their (most of their) religious convictions before their political agendas / goals more than the other way around. Christianity TEACHES (yet is not always followed) loving others, putting others 1st, doing what's right, etc... while we have seen the corruption, deceit, lies, lack of morals and integrity, etc that result from personal political agendas, goals, decisions. Not always, just in most cases. We have several hundred career politicians whose personal / party political goals have trumped religious values, and in the midst of their scandals, lies, and crime the American people have been betrayed, screwed, and have suffered. At the same time there have been many religious 'leaders' / people who have been corrupted and engaged in some of the same activity. It usually depends on the person, their own foundation, and the circumstances.

Bottom line - your choice / right to do so. I have spent a lifetime ensuring you have that right. Keep it up.

What really raised a flag for me was his comment "Without God, where do your rights come from?", which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of inalienable rights. It's essentially no different than liberals who claim rights "come from government". Rubio doesn't get that inalienable freedoms are an innate byproduct of free will, regardless of how we were created. That's dumb, and dangerous, and not a view I'd want to see represented in the White House.

Rights only exist if they are enforced.

As second generation Japanese Americans found out when they were interned by the U.S. Government.

the derivation of rights...other than what is on paper, is nothing more than a philosophical construct, and is, ultimately, irrelevant to construction of the Constitution.

I'll point out again, that Rubio is wrong because there is specifically a prohibition against a religious litmus test for our public officials.

 

[dblack]

dblack, it is your choice to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want and NOT to vote for anyone for any reason you have.

In most cases, personally, I would trust someone who put their (most of their) religious convictions before their political agendas / goals more than the other way around. Christianity TEACHES (yet is not always followed) loving others, putting others 1st, doing what's right, etc... while we have seen the corruption, deceit, lies, lack of morals and integrity, etc that result from personal political agendas, goals, decisions. Not always, just in most cases. We have several hundred career politicians whose personal / party political goals have trumped religious values, and in the midst of their scandals, lies, and crime the American people have been betrayed, screwed, and have suffered. At the same time there have been many religious 'leaders' / people who have been corrupted and engaged in some of the same activity. It usually depends on the person, their own foundation, and the circumstances.

Bottom line - your choice / right to do so. I have spent a lifetime ensuring you have that right. Keep it up.

What really raised a flag for me was his comment "Without God, where do your rights come from?", which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of inalienable rights. It's essentially no different than liberals who claim rights "come from government". Rubio doesn't get that inalienable freedoms are an innate byproduct of free will, regardless of how we were created. That's dumb, and dangerous, and not a view I'd want to see represented in the White House.

Rights only exist if they are enforced.

As second generation Japanese Americans found out when they were interned by the U.S. Government.

the derivation of rights...other than wha tis on paper, is nothing more than a philosophical construct.

easyt65 - do you see what I mean? The common (statist) liberal position that rights are nothing more than philosophical constructs means that government is free to "change" them by fiat. Which makes no sense if you understand the concept of inalienable rights. Rubio's view isn't really that much different. If, in Rubio's view, God changes his mind, our rights are jeopardized.

Both views share the same misconception and lack of understanding. And they're both dangerous for similar reasons.

 

[Iceweasel]

Rights only exist if they are enforced.

As second generation Japanese Americans found out when they were interned by the U.S. Government.

the derivation of rights...other than what is on paper, is nothing more than a philosophical construct, and is, ultimately, irrelevant to construction of the Constitution.

I'll point out again, that Rubio is wrong because there is specifically a prohibition against a religious litmus test for our public officials.

When did Rubio claim there was a religious litmus test? You're embellishing on what he said. And rights exist whether they are enforced or not. It means their rights were violated.

 

[Iceweasel]

What really raised a flag for me was his comment "Without God, where do your rights come from?", which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of inalienable rights. It's essentially no different than liberals who claim rights "come from government". Rubio doesn't get that inalienable freedoms are an innate byproduct of free will, regardless of how we were created. That's dumb, and dangerous, and not a view I'd want to see represented in the White House.

That made zero sense. The concept of freewill is a religious one. Otherwise, why bring up will in the first place. So your bigotry is showing once again, you just don't like that he, like most, believe our fundamental rights come from a creator. What is dangerous is people like you that misrepresent others' viewpoints for political gain.

 

[NightFox]

easyt65 - do you see what I mean? The common (statist) liberal position that rights are nothing more than philosophical constructs means that government is free to "change" them by fiat. Which makes no sense if you understand the concept of inalienable rights. Rubio's view isn't really that much different. If, in Rubio's view, God changes his mind, our rights are jeopardized.

Both views share the same misconception and lack of understanding. And they're both dangerous for similar reasons.

Good points dblack, although I would add a couple of things, your argument illustrates slave of the state vs slave of the CHURCH, slave of the state (i.e. people like jillian) harbor the same mentality that was prevalent for say certain German Citizens during the Third Reich that willingly rounded up Jews and trucked them off to gas chambers because they were ordered to by the State (the highest power in their mind) whereas slave of the church mentality would be exemplified by something like the Spanish Inquisition where some adherents to Catholicism tortured and executed untold thousands because they were ordered to by the Church (the Church after all speaks for God in their minds).

In practice there is no difference between the two types of individuals. Neither one of these types of people should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power (heck I don't even want them as neighbors since they'd be the first one kicking your door in and shooting you if ordered to by their Earthly masters who are the primary source of their morality).

That being said one can still quite comfortably declare that the source of our inalienable rights is "the Creator" if one acknowledges that a being powerful enough to create the Universe could "change it's mind" (abolish free will) and there would be no recourse for humanity (i.e. we're not going to be able to argue with it), or one might say (if one were an agnostic or atheist) those rights are a product of "our humanity" .... no real difference in the mentality IMHO.

I don't know where Rubio stands on the particulars but as you pointed out he certainly sounded like one of the slaves of the church types.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't know where Rubio stands on the particulars but as you pointed out he certainly sounded like one of the slaves of the church types.

Which law that he voted for would indicate he's a slave to the church?

 

[sealybobo]

if you believe.

no one cares if you believe or not.

but this thread was about the radical religious right trying to make this country a theocracy.

your beliefs should not be legislated into law. that's what the first amendment is for. (no matter what the rabid wingers say).

No, this thread was about a Rat plant trying to disrupt a Rubio town hall with a simple agenda: to paint Rubio as a fanatic. Instead it turned out to be as good a case for one letting their Christianity guide their actions as I've ever heard. Rubio hit it out of the park and all the pathetic little atheists can do is crawl back into their hidey holes.

I'd like to know if the retard thinks all non christians go to hell. Can he answer that question? Yes would immediately disqualify him imo.

 

[Conservative65]

if you believe.

no one cares if you believe or not.

but this thread was about the radical religious right trying to make this country a theocracy.

your beliefs should not be legislated into law. that's what the first amendment is for. (no matter what the rabid wingers say).

No, this thread was about a Rat plant trying to disrupt a Rubio town hall with a simple agenda: to paint Rubio as a fanatic. Instead it turned out to be as good a case for one letting their Christianity guide their actions as I've ever heard. Rubio hit it out of the park and all the pathetic little atheists can do is crawl back into their hidey holes.

I'd like to know if the retard thinks all non christians go to hell. Can he answer that question? Yes would immediately disqualify him imo.

If you'll read the Bible, it says what it takes. The means someone not doing what it takes doesn't go.

The Bible doesn't say you get to decide who qualified and who doesn't unless you can show me that passage.

 

[NightFox]

I don't know where Rubio stands on the particulars but as you pointed out he certainly sounded like one of the slaves of the church types.

Which law that he voted for would indicate he's a slave to the church?

Nothing that he voted for (that I'm aware of), just the way he phrased the particular argument in the video linked by the OP; Beyond that I have never seen anything from him that indicates he harbors a "slave of the church" mentality (which is why I said "I don't know where Rubio stands on the particulars"). Would be an interesting question for him at the GOP debate that would allow him to clarify his thinking on it.

 

[sealybobo]

if you believe.

no one cares if you believe or not.

but this thread was about the radical religious right trying to make this country a theocracy.

your beliefs should not be legislated into law. that's what the first amendment is for. (no matter what the rabid wingers say).

No, this thread was about a Rat plant trying to disrupt a Rubio town hall with a simple agenda: to paint Rubio as a fanatic. Instead it turned out to be as good a case for one letting their Christianity guide their actions as I've ever heard. Rubio hit it out of the park and all the pathetic little atheists can do is crawl back into their hidey holes.

I'd like to know if the retard thinks all non christians go to hell. Can he answer that question? Yes would immediately disqualify him imo.

If you'll read the Bible, it says what it takes. The means someone not doing what it takes doesn't go.

The Bible doesn't say you get to decide who qualified and who doesn't unless you can show me that passage.

I read that sci fi book.

 

[Conservative65]

if you believe.

no one cares if you believe or not.

but this thread was about the radical religious right trying to make this country a theocracy.

your beliefs should not be legislated into law. that's what the first amendment is for. (no matter what the rabid wingers say).

No, this thread was about a Rat plant trying to disrupt a Rubio town hall with a simple agenda: to paint Rubio as a fanatic. Instead it turned out to be as good a case for one letting their Christianity guide their actions as I've ever heard. Rubio hit it out of the park and all the pathetic little atheists can do is crawl back into their hidey holes.

I'd like to know if the retard thinks all non christians go to hell. Can he answer that question? Yes would immediately disqualify him imo.

If you'll read the Bible, it says what it takes. The means someone not doing what it takes doesn't go.

The Bible doesn't say you get to decide who qualified and who doesn't unless you can show me that passage.

I read that sci fi book.

Apparently not since you seem to think you get to decide who is and who isn't.

Are you one of those evolution people? What I need to believe evolution is for you to show me a picture of my grandfather from 20,000 generations ago you claim I evolved from. No picture, no proof.