Would you vote for an atheist

[Photonic]

I question the existence of God on many occasions. At one point I considered myself an atheist. Now I consider myself an somewhat of agnostic thankful I live in a Christian nation!

Personally I prefer a President who is a god fearing man or woman over someone who only fears man! When a man as powerful as the US President doesn't fear a higher being and only fears man, but is so powerful that he has no man to fear, I would be scared! See Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (catered to the Christians, but was very much an atheist). Not too mention atheist usually fall in the communist/socialist/far leftist camp!

Of course I would fear an Muslim President 100 fold more than an atheist!

I'm a centrist-fiscal conservative atheist...?

 

[Ernie S.]

By that EXACT same logic, all religious people are extremists.


Please do not enforce your generalizations on us.

Did you know most Buddhists are considered by definition to be atheist right? Some Hindu's also.

Atheist doesn't mean a lack of religion, just a lack of belief in the existence of any deity.

It's not a belief, it's simply a state of lacking a belief.

Hopefully this information will cure a lot of the propaganda that has been spread against atheists. Though people are notorious for having tunnel vision.

Then why are do so many atheists here spend an inordinate amount of time insulting the beliefs of Christians?
Are you OK with Atheists who call my God "Invisible Sky Daddy?

So what? Do you have the statistics on the assertion that all atheists do that? Just because they are more vocal does not make them the majority.

I am atheist and I don't agree with calling someones deity an invisible sky daddy. DO I believe what they say? Sure. I don't agree with them asserting that on other people though!

I doubt Buddhists call your God that, or some Hindu's who are atheist. Or the many pagans who believe the Goddess is simply a name for the universe. Or scientific pantheists.

Any denomination that doesn't believe in a deity is an atheist. It's like categorizing all theists as people that push their theism on other people. Do you get what I mean?

Vocality is not equivalent to majority.

Of course I get what you mean. What I don't get is why atheists continually start discussions wherein they call attention to their beliefs.
Yes there are Christians that do the same thing, but I'd bet religion threads by atheist OP's outnumber those by Christians 5 to 1.

 

[Photonic]

Then why are do so many atheists here spend an inordinate amount of time insulting the beliefs of Christians?
Are you OK with Atheists who call my God "Invisible Sky Daddy?

So what? Do you have the statistics on the assertion that all atheists do that? Just because they are more vocal does not make them the majority.

I am atheist and I don't agree with calling someones deity an invisible sky daddy. DO I believe what they say? Sure. I don't agree with them asserting that on other people though!

I doubt Buddhists call your God that, or some Hindu's who are atheist. Or the many pagans who believe the Goddess is simply a name for the universe. Or scientific pantheists.

Any denomination that doesn't believe in a deity is an atheist. It's like categorizing all theists as people that push their theism on other people. Do you get what I mean?

Vocality is not equivalent to majority.

Of course I get what you mean. What I don't get is why atheists continually start discussions wherein they call attention to their beliefs.
Yes there are Christians that do the same thing, but I'd bet religion threads by atheist OP's outnumber those by Christians 5 to 1.

It would greatly benefit you to visit a few religion forums sometime, you will find that that point simply won't hold. Most atheists simply live like anyone else.

The most vocal are those that have recently left their religion and feel the need to retaliate. This is by and far quite a small minority, and they are just as frowned on as religion extremists.

 

[The T]

I question the existence of God on many occasions. At one point I considered myself an atheist. Now I consider myself an somewhat of agnostic thankful I live in a Christian nation!

Personally I prefer a President who is a god fearing man or woman over someone who only fears man! When a man as powerful as the US President doesn't fear a higher being and only fears man, but is so powerful that he has no man to fear, I would be scared! See Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (catered to the Christians, but was very much an atheist). Not too mention atheist usually fall in the communist/socialist/far leftist camp!

Of course I would fear an Muslim President 100 fold more than an atheist!

God gives every man the power of choice and faith. Outlined In the Declaration, spoke about in the Bible). But what is missing for many is knowing the consequences for the lack of faith.

There are entities all around us that man has no control over by design...and isn't it fair to have faith that there is a reason why, and that men are insignificant and solely responsible for themselves and thier choices?

 

[Ernie S.]

You're correct because there was no 'Separation of Church And State' ever mentioned in the Constitution. That term came from a letter from Jefferson to the Baptists in Danbury, Conneticut.

The First Amendment was crafted for the expressed purpose of Liberty of the individual to practice as they pleased, and the Government had no say in the matter. And the fact that there would be NO Govcernment sanctioned religion as was the case with England.

So you don't find religious beliefs influencing laws to be sanctioning them?

Or forcing religious views into the education system (which is funded completely by state) to be sanctioning them?

Okay, please add "sanction" to your rapidly-increasing vocabulary list. There are just ALL KINDS of words you use without knowing the meaning of them.

No, dimwit, allowing individual people to participate in government regardless of their beliefs is not "the government sanctioning their religion".

And I don't recall ANYONE advocating forcing religious views into the education system in this thread. Certainly the person you were putatively responding to said no such thing. Again, perhaps you could limit yourself to arguing against the WORDS ACTUALLY COMING FROM OTHERS, instead of arguing against what you think they think, and putting your words into their mouths.

Brilliant! got to spread and all that.

 

[Photonic]

I question the existence of God on many occasions. At one point I considered myself an atheist. Now I consider myself an somewhat of agnostic thankful I live in a Christian nation!

Personally I prefer a President who is a god fearing man or woman over someone who only fears man! When a man as powerful as the US President doesn't fear a higher being and only fears man, but is so powerful that he has no man to fear, I would be scared! See Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (catered to the Christians, but was very much an atheist). Not too mention atheist usually fall in the communist/socialist/far leftist camp!

Of course I would fear an Muslim President 100 fold more than an atheist!

God gives every man the power of choice and faith. Outlined In the Declaration, spoke about in the Bible). But what is missing for many is knowing the consequences for the lack of faith.

There are entities all around us that man has no control over by design...and isn't it fair to have faith that there is a reason why, and that men are insignificant and solely responsible for themselves and thier choices?

"Consequences for the lack of faith..." I'm not sure I appreciate the tone of that. Why don't we talk about some of the consequences of being faithful historically? Face it, humans are humans, no matter what faith they hold.

The Declaration of Independence is not where we derive our laws from, it was a decree of separation and grievances against the Throne of England.

 

[Ernie S.]

So what? Do you have the statistics on the assertion that all atheists do that? Just because they are more vocal does not make them the majority.

I am atheist and I don't agree with calling someones deity an invisible sky daddy. DO I believe what they say? Sure. I don't agree with them asserting that on other people though!

I doubt Buddhists call your God that, or some Hindu's who are atheist. Or the many pagans who believe the Goddess is simply a name for the universe. Or scientific pantheists.

Any denomination that doesn't believe in a deity is an atheist. It's like categorizing all theists as people that push their theism on other people. Do you get what I mean?

Vocality is not equivalent to majority.

Of course I get what you mean. What I don't get is why atheists continually start discussions wherein they call attention to their beliefs.
Yes there are Christians that do the same thing, but I'd bet religion threads by atheist OP's outnumber those by Christians 5 to 1.

It would greatly benefit you to visit a few religion forums sometime, you will find that that point simply won't hold. Most atheists simply live like anyone else.

The most vocal are those that have recently left their religion and feel the need to retaliate. This is by and far quite a small minority, and they are just as frowned on as religion extremists.

So why do they all seem to end up here.
I have no need or desire to participate in religious forums. I need no religion or pastor to tell me how to practice my spirituality. The only time I get to church these days is for funerals. I attend them in order to comfort loved ones of the dead.
My "Church" is the seat of my motorcycle or a clearing in the woods. That's where I feel close to my maker.

 

[Photonic]

Of course I get what you mean. What I don't get is why atheists continually start discussions wherein they call attention to their beliefs.
Yes there are Christians that do the same thing, but I'd bet religion threads by atheist OP's outnumber those by Christians 5 to 1.

It would greatly benefit you to visit a few religion forums sometime, you will find that that point simply won't hold. Most atheists simply live like anyone else.

The most vocal are those that have recently left their religion and feel the need to retaliate. This is by and far quite a small minority, and they are just as frowned on as religion extremists.

So why do they all seem to end up here.
I have no need or desire to participate in religious forums. I need no religion or pastor to tell me how to practice my spirituality. The only time I get to church these days is for funerals. I attend them in order to comfort loved ones of the dead.
My "Church" is the seat of my motorcycle or a clearing in the woods. That's where I feel close to my maker.

Sounds good to me. I practice my spirituality by looking up into a clear sky on a mountain at night. It reminds me of why I do what I do. We all have our ways of fulfilling our lives. Atheists are not exempt from this. If it an atheist leaving a religion, often they are looking for something else to fill what religion used to give them spiritually. They often feel the need to lash out at the old religion during this period of introspection. I went through it too. Those who switch religions often go through it too, from what I've observed.

 

[Ernie S.]

Precisely the intent of the Founders when they sent it to King George III.

They explained WHY they were doing what they were and at the end of the day? The Constitution accentuated the point over the imperfect Articles of Confederation that were too much like a Democracy.

Declaring war and independence is not the same as laying down a system of laws. They understood this when they failed at the Articles of Confederation, hence why we now have a very different constitution.

you are talking to a literal retard

A bit egotistical, aren't you? Hint: He was not talking to you.

 

[GHook93]

I question the existence of God on many occasions. At one point I considered myself an atheist. Now I consider myself an somewhat of agnostic thankful I live in a Christian nation!

Personally I prefer a President who is a god fearing man or woman over someone who only fears man! When a man as powerful as the US President doesn't fear a higher being and only fears man, but is so powerful that he has no man to fear, I would be scared! See Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (catered to the Christians, but was very much an atheist). Not too mention atheist usually fall in the communist/socialist/far leftist camp!

Of course I would fear an Muslim President 100 fold more than an atheist!

I'm a centrist-fiscal conservative atheist...?

I will set aside my view that you are hardly right of center on fiscal matter. I never said I didn't like many atheist or that they are bad people, nor that they can't run, but conservatives or be Republicans for the matter. Rather I prefer god fearing men or women in the oval office!

 

[Missourian]

Oh ok, not a majority of Christians but you didn't really specify numbers so creationism is a big problem.

Oh, so is Gay marriage.

These are public systems and there are government benefits derived from marriage, it is no longer a religious establishment. To say that two consenting adults can't claim a government benefit because you don't want to give them their due freedom is insane.

Why just two...why not three or five or eleven?

Religious dogma being taught in public school is no less so, if they wish to have their children taught creationism (which is a religious view based on assertions and not on fact) they are free to do so in private schools.

Hell, I want taught man made global warming 30 years ago, just as much assertion as creationism.

I have nothing against Christians until they push their agenda on a public platform. Very few Christians do this and the ones that do are often looked down on by the majority for painting them in a bad light. I have no problem with religion as a whole but I do have problems with extremists of any religion.

Hopefully I am able to answer what he does not care too.

It's okay to be opposed to gay marriage, as long as it's not religion based?

That's just silly.

Since there is no factual evolutionary theory for the creation of the organic from the inorganic, at the moment, creationism is no more assertion based than the scientific theory.

Anything else?

I'm going to play nice and simply let you know that evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. That would be abiogenesis, which does have supporting experimental evidence.

Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience

Something creationism lacks in its entirety.


As to the polygamous marriage, that would seem more like tax evasion than actual marriage at that point. While I agree that it is not simply a Christian only talking point, it is primarily Christians that support the ban of marriage that is not between man and woman. Why, if you cannot discriminate in the constitution, should you be allowed to discriminate in a government institution?

Interesting article, but they lost me at "primordial soup".

Show me scientific evidence that there was any "primordial soup".

"Primordial soup" is an imaginary concept with no basis in reality.

The Miller-Uley experiment had to be custom tailored to produce any results.

When the Miller-Uley experiment was conducted with true atmospheric gases, there was no result.

I suspect this experiment was equally custom tailored, and in no way resembled true atmospheric/oceanic conditions on Earth.

 

[Photonic]

It's okay to be opposed to gay marriage, as long as it's not religion based?

That's just silly.

Since there is no factual evolutionary theory for the creation of the organic from the inorganic, at the moment, creationism is no more assertion based than the scientific theory.

Anything else?

I'm going to play nice and simply let you know that evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. That would be abiogenesis, which does have supporting experimental evidence.

Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience

Something creationism lacks in its entirety.


As to the polygamous marriage, that would seem more like tax evasion than actual marriage at that point. While I agree that it is not simply a Christian only talking point, it is primarily Christians that support the ban of marriage that is not between man and woman. Why, if you cannot discriminate in the constitution, should you be allowed to discriminate in a government institution?

Interesting article, but they lost me at "primordial soup".

Show me scientific evidence that there was any "primordial soup".

"Primordial soup" is an imaginary concept with no basis in reality.

The Miller-Uley experiment had to be custom tailored to produce any results.

When the Miller-Uley experiment was conducted with true atmospheric gases, there was no result.

I suspect this experiment was equally custom tailored, and in no way resembled true atmospheric/oceanic conditions on Earth.

It was an experiment created with lab conditions similar to what would be expected of early Earth at the time life is expected to have occurred. Creationism argues from the lack of evidence as evidence, that is not acceptable.

It would be somewhat more acceptable if they actually performed experiments instead of simply arguing.

 

[Missourian]

Interesting article, but they lost me at "primordial soup".

Show me scientific evidence that there was any "primordial soup".

"Primordial soup" is an imaginary concept with no basis in reality.

The Miller-Uley experiment had to be custom tailored to produce any results.

When the Miller-Uley experiment was conducted with true atmospheric gases, there was no result.

I suspect this experiment was equally custom tailored, and in no way resembled true atmospheric/oceanic conditions on Earth.

It was an experiment created with lab conditions similar to what would be expected of early Earth at the time life is expected to have occurred.

I didn't see that in the article regarding this experiment. I reread it, the search the article for "Earth", "Atmosphere", and "Conditions". Nothing.

Miller-Uley was certainly NOT conducted under conditions in any way similar to those of proto-Earth.

 

[Photonic]

Interesting article, but they lost me at "primordial soup".

Show me scientific evidence that there was any "primordial soup".

"Primordial soup" is an imaginary concept with no basis in reality.

The Miller-Uley experiment had to be custom tailored to produce any results.

When the Miller-Uley experiment was conducted with true atmospheric gases, there was no result.

I suspect this experiment was equally custom tailored, and in no way resembled true atmospheric/oceanic conditions on Earth.

It was an experiment created with lab conditions similar to what would be expected of early Earth at the time life is expected to have occurred.

I didn't see that in the article regarding this experiment. I reread it, the search the article for "Earth", "Atmosphere", and "Conditions". Nothing.

Miller-Uley was certainly NOT conducted under conditions in any way similar to those of proto-Earth.

Yikes, that's embarrassing. I'm sorry I linked the wrong article!

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Just noticed.

 

[Missourian]

It was an experiment created with lab conditions similar to what would be expected of early Earth at the time life is expected to have occurred.

I didn't see that in the article regarding this experiment. I reread it, the search the article for "Earth", "Atmosphere", and "Conditions". Nothing.

Miller-Uley was certainly NOT conducted under conditions in any way similar to those of proto-Earth.

Yikes, that's embarrassing. I'm sorry I linked the wrong article!

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Just noticed.

No problem, going to have to wait 'til tomorrow for a reply tho.

I've got my chart and binoculars and the moon has almost set...the Cosmos call.

Have a great night.

 

[hjmick]

Would I vote for an Atheist? At this point I'll vote for anyone I think will do a better job running the country than the morons currently in control. Democrats and Republicans both.

 

[bobcollum]

This thread is a riot.

Christians and other religious people: Yes the atheists think they're smarter than you...they're convinced(possibly correctly) that you worship what amounts to a manifestation of your imagination...didn't you think David Berkowitz was crazy? Be honest, you act all offended, but you don't respect atheism...you might not be open about it, but the very premise involves denouncing the validity of most religions in the world...oh, and you think they're going to hell.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By that EXACT same logic, all religious people are extremists.

By WHAT logic are all religious people extremists? I expressed an observation; I didn't make an argument.



Unless I'm at your house, holding a gun to your ear and demanding that you say that all atheists are extremists, I'm not "enforcing" anything on you, tweeko. And if you can't speak any more clearly and precisely than this - or are always this thin-skinned and hypersensitive - you're going to have some real problems around here.

Just a friendly heads-up.



And your point would be what?



Did I say it did? Here's a thought. How about you wait until I actually SAY something before you argue against it? Could we manage that? Because quite frankly, I really doubt that you're smart enough to articulate my beliefs for me, and I feel really violated when morons try to stick their words in my mouth.



Sorry, Sparky, but your saying it doesn't make it so. The fact is, atheism for many people is an active belief that THERE IS NO GOD, as opposed to a passive lack of belief in a god. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be able to evangelize so excessively, nor would they take such great offense to being made aware that other people DO believe in a god.

Which brings us back to my personal observation that atheism often equals zealotry.

Hopefully this information will cure a lot of the propaganda that has been spread against atheists. Though people are notorious for having tunnel vision.

Memo to you: learn the definition of "information", because this did not qualify.

You are not expressing rational observations. I'm sorry you are raised to be as blind as you are. Perhaps in the future we can speak on reasonable terms, but this is obviously not what you are currently capable of.

::snore:: My observations are not irrational simply because you say so, Princess, nor is telling me I'm stupid going to prove that I am. If you want to flounce away in high dudgeon because you started shooting off your mouth on an Internet message board and met derision instead of acclaim, feel free. So far, you haven't added much. If you really want to "speak on reasonable terms", try butching up and little and saying something of substance, instead of stating your opinions and expecting everyone to applaud you. This ain't kindergarten.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By that EXACT same logic, all religious people are extremists.


Please do not enforce your generalizations on us.

Did you know most Buddhists are considered by definition to be atheist right? Some Hindu's also.

Atheist doesn't mean a lack of religion, just a lack of belief in the existence of any deity.

It's not a belief, it's simply a state of lacking a belief.

Hopefully this information will cure a lot of the propaganda that has been spread against atheists. Though people are notorious for having tunnel vision.

Then why are do so many atheists here spend an inordinate amount of time insulting the beliefs of Christians?
Are you OK with Atheists who call my God "Invisible Sky Daddy?

So what? Do you have the statistics on the assertion that all atheists do that? Just because they are more vocal does not make them the majority.

Did he SAY "all atheists"? What the **** is wrong with you that you're apparently incapable of reading the words that appear on your computer screen? Are you illiterate, or just distracted by the voices in your head?

I am atheist and I don't agree with calling someones deity an invisible sky daddy. DO I believe what they say? Sure. I don't agree with them asserting that on other people though!

So you just THINK "Invisible Sky Daddy", and want us to give you brownie points for not saying it out loud?

I doubt Buddhists call your God that, or some Hindu's who are atheist. Or the many pagans who believe the Goddess is simply a name for the universe. Or scientific pantheists.

I'm pretty sure that neither Buddhists nor Hindus, for all that their religions do not include a specific deity, consider themselves atheists or would appreciate being called so. And Goddess-worshippers and pantheon-worshippers aren't even CLOSE to comparable to atheists.

Any denomination that doesn't believe in a deity is an atheist. It's like categorizing all theists as people that push their theism on other people. Do you get what I mean?

Vocality is not equivalent to majority.

Have you noticed that your post has degenerated into having not one frigging thing to do with the post it's allegedly answering? Perhaps you could try reading at some point in time.

For the record, the post you allegedly responded to spoke of "many atheists on this board", not "all atheists in the world". See if you can figure out the difference.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Timothy McVeigh was no more a Christian than I am an Arabic Muslim. As for abortion clinic bombers, I don't consider them representative of all Christianity any more than I consider Timothy McVeigh representative of all agnostics, which was actually what he professed to believe.

As Ann Coulter has pointed out, the left seems to automatically assume that all white men who know how to use guns are Christian conservatives. Perhaps it's because they so desperately WANT a terrorist who's not either Muslim or a leftist.

Great points, all. Target hit.

Then how is such vapid generalizations being applied to atheists too? You don't find that even slightly off?

Perhaps if you learned to read and understand what people actually SAY, rather than what you WISH they had said, you would realize that I have yet to make a general remark about "all atheists", dumbfuck. My remarks have all been about atheists I have personally met. Have YOU met all the same atheists I have? No? Then how the **** do you know whether what I said was accurate and specific or not?

Like I keep saying, Buttercup: Butch up a little and stop running around looking for shit to take personally and whine about.