Religion in Politics? What do you think?

[ttriber]

What do you think about Religion in Politics?

Personally I feel it's almost like an obligation If some stuff I believe doesn't go with my religion I feel I can't vote for that candidate or the person. Whether the person be the best or worst candidate.

I'm writing an essay about this since one of my professors made me watch an Obama speech on the relationship between religion and politics. So I'm curious who has the same feelings as I do and the opposite feelings. I would love to hear them.

[Tharagor]

I live devoid of religion so it isn't a concern of mine. Personally I feel that religion is personal and has nothing to do with public life. Given that, why should anyone consider voting for a person less qualified for the job just because their positions more in line with the voters belief system?

[Buck Laser]

It was my religion that got me involved in the civil rights movement of the late 50s and early 60s. I sat in, I marched, I helped train civil rights activists. And as a clergyman, I spent a lot of time counseling with and listening to kids who were worried about the war or who opposed it.

My guess is that a lot of today's religious people would think that wrong. Sadly, a lot of them did in the 60s as well. That's why I changed my career path. But if a significant element in the church wanted to go at those goals again, I'd be ready in a minute.

[underdawg]

I think it is one thing for someone to voluntarily state their beliefs and use their faith to guide their actions, but it is wrong for religious belief to be a prerequisite for anyone seeking elected service in government.

[PostmodernProphet]

I like to be aware of a politician's religion....after all, who could trust the judgement of an atheist on any other issues......

[Lucky13]

I like to be aware of a politician's religion....after all, who could trust the judgement of an atheist on any other issues......

Whoa...am I understanding you correctly? You think that the judgement of an atheist (or possibly an agnostic) is suspect?
Why?

If a religion of a politician is important, is the denomination or sect of the religion also important?

Is there a particular religion whose members show a consistent exercise of good judgement?

Your statement might have been tongue n cheek...if so I apologize for all questions.:sadly:

Inquiring minds wanna know.:ponder:
pat

[Tharagor]

I like to be aware of a politician's religion....after all, who could trust the judgement of an atheist on any other issues......


Because atheism is more logical than theism?

If we have no concerns with a monotheist, the least logical of all forms of theism, we should have no issues with an atheist.

[Easy90]

I like to be aware of a politician's religion....after all, who could trust the judgement of an atheist on any other issues......

Whoa...am I understanding you correctly? You think that the judgement of an atheist (or possibly an agnostic) is suspect?
Why?

If a religion of a politician is important, is the denomination or sect of the religion also important?

Is there a particular religion whose members show a consistent exercise of good judgement?

Your statement might have been tongue n cheek...if so I apologize for all questions.:sadly:

Inquiring minds wanna know.:ponder:
pat


Yep...you read him correctly...he wasn't kidding. :dizzy:

[PostmodernProphet]

Whoa...am I understanding you correctly? You think that the judgement of an atheist is suspect?
Why?

well, it was a BIT tongue in cheek, but seriously, have you ever met one who was intelligent....I mean basically an atheist is an agnostic who doesn't even understand what "we don't know" means.......

[Lucky13]

have you ever met one who was intelligent....I mean basically an atheist is an agnostic who doesn't even understand what "we don't know" means.......

Hell, yes. (No pun intended)

I have spoken to quite a few atheists and agnostics. Like Christians, I find some of them very intelligent and well read. Then there are those that are as dumb as a bag of rocks. Most fall somewhere in the middle. That is true of most groups of people, no?

I think you are mistaken when you infer that agnostics or atheists do not possess critical thinking skills. It really does depend on the individual, doesn't it?

Egads...that's like saying an atheist or agnostic doesn't understand morality or good character.
And I just KNOW you aren't saying that.
:ponder:

pat

[ttriber]

Laser I like what you have posted what other event has religion impacted in politics other then the civil rights movement in a positive way.

[underdawg]

Whoa...am I understanding you correctly? You think that the judgement of an atheist is suspect?
Why?

well, it was a BIT tongue in cheek, but seriously, have you ever met one who was intelligent....I mean basically an atheist is an agnostic who doesn't even understand what "we don't know" means.......


So are you trying to say that someone is not intelligent unless they are willing to suspend logical thinking and blindly believe in some sort of diety and life after death because they hope the unseen to be true?

[Easy90]

well, it was a BIT tongue in cheek, but seriously, have you ever met one who was intelligent....I mean basically an atheist is an agnostic who doesn't even understand what "we don't know" means....... (Postmodern Prophet, saying he thinks Atheists are dumb.)

Right...and a Christian Fundamentalist is a person who believes the earth is 5,000 years old, an all loving "God" knows what you're thinking, and he condemned humans, whom he created to suffer eternal torture if you don't believe he "loves" you. They believe that the Roman Gods were fake, but think their God (the REAL one) told Noah to build a big boat, put two of every living species of animal in it, and in 40 days of rain, flooded the entire Earth (which was flat when the story was written)...Oh, Oh! But before that, Adam, the first man...ate an apple, (cause Eve told him to) and for that...people were born with "original sin...." and so, God decided he had to impregnate a virgin with his sperm...then Jesus, his son was born...Jesus grew up, did some magic tricks, and got killed, which somehow makes "original sin" (from eating the apple) go away...if you believe the story...and Jesus flew up into heaven after he died, but he'll come back and they all the righteous will rise up and fly up to heaven to be with God...unless you don't believe this...then you'll be tortured forever.

Yeah..that's all believable. And, you're "not very bright" if you don't essentially believe all that...Right "Postmodern Prophet?" :lmao:

[Osborn F. Enready]

I think religion and politics are like oil and water.

Religion is an INDIVIDUAL value set.
Politics are the workings of a government for a group of people.

They have nothing in common, and shouldn't mix unless you live in a theocracy.

[sam]

Not to be picky here Easy, but I think Adam ate the apple before the flood.

But to PMP, to imply that agnostics or atheists are lacking in either intelligence or morality is ludicrous and quite frankly down right insulting.

Who are you to judge? If you are a devout Christian, then surely you remember
'judge not, lest ye be judge'? Because some prefer logic does not in the least diminish either their intellectual or moral code.

[Lucky13]

I think religion and politics are like oil and water.

Religion is an INDIVIDUAL value set.
Politics are the workings of a government for a group of people.

They have nothing in common, and shouldn't mix unless you live in a theocracy.

Great post and to the point.
Amen, brother.
pat

[Easy90]

I think religion and politics are like oil and water.

Religion is an INDIVIDUAL value set.
Politics are the workings of a government for a group of people.

They have nothing in common, and shouldn't mix unless you live in a theocracy.

Great post and to the point.
Amen, brother.
pat



Nonsense! I am with Postmodern Prophet. If you don't believe in the apple, the flood, parting of the Red Sea, the Burning Bush, (ouch!)...and the Virgin birth...you're just too dumb to be a good American and not smart enough to be a politician.:madlaugh:

Oh...and you're gonna go to HELL and burn forever...cause God loves you.

[Osborn F. Enready]

easy90 said:
Nonsense! I am with Postmodern Prophet. If you don't believe in the apple, the flood, parting of the Red Sea, the Burning Bush, (ouch!)...and the Virgin birth...you're just too dumb to be a good American and not smart enough to be a politician.

Oh...and you're gonna go to HELL and burn forever...cause God loves you.

When you pass gas, you should say "excuse you", and if anything else came out besides the gas you spilled all over the forum, wipe please. ;)

[Easy90]

"When you pass gas, you should say "excuse you", and if anything else came out besides the gas you spilled all over the forum, wipe please." (Osborn)

Thanks, but I won't need to. You'll be there to do it for me...:madlaugh:

[PostmodernProphet]

I think you are mistaken when you infer that agnostics or atheists do not possess critical thinking skills. It really does depend on the individual, doesn't it?

that's your second attempt to pretend I have made any statements at all about agnostics.....please correct your mistake.....

yes, I suspect it would depend on the individual....I simply have been deprived of meeting an intelligent atheist....[hr]

So are you trying to say that someone is not intelligent unless they are willing to suspend logical thinking and blindly believe in some sort of diety and life after death because they hope the unseen to be true?



not at all, I am saying that they are not intelligent if they believe that saying "there is no god" isn't a suspension of logical thinking and a blind belief in something they cannot prove......
[hr]
Right...and a Christian Fundamentalist is a person who believes the earth is 5,000 years old, an all loving "God" knows what you're thinking, and he condemned humans, whom he created to suffer eternal torture if you don't believe he "loves" you. They believe that the Roman Gods were fake, but think their God (the REAL one) told Noah to build a big boat, put two of every living species of animal in it, and in 40 days of rain, flooded the entire Earth (which was flat when the story was written)...Oh, Oh! But before that, Adam, the first man...ate an apple, (cause Eve told him to) and for that...people were born with "original sin...." and so, God decided he had to impregnate a virgin with his sperm...then Jesus, his son was born...Jesus grew up, did some magic tricks, and got killed, which somehow makes "original sin" (from eating the apple) go away...if you believe the story...and Jesus flew up into heaven after he died, but he'll come back and they all the righteous will rise up and fly up to heaven to be with God...unless you don't believe this...then you'll be tortured forever.

Yeah..that's all believable. And, you're "not very bright" if you don't essentially believe all that...Right "Postmodern Prophet?" :lmao:


considering how little you know about religion, I am surprised you engage in discussions about it.....[hr]

Who are you to judge? If you are a devout Christian, then surely you remember
'judge not, lest ye be judge'? Because some prefer logic does not in the least diminish either their intellectual or moral code.


????...I have said nothing about their moral code, nor have I made any effort to judge the status of their soul...

the admonition against judging speaks nothing to having an opinion with respect to their intelligence......be that as it may, to say that an atheist prefers logic is absurd.....they make the claim "there is no god" in absense of proof....they thus have made the same type of faith choice that I have, though with the opposite focus....then they pretend THEIR choice was logical instead of faith based.....

not only illogical but dishonest.....

[Easy90]

considering how little you know about religion, I am surprised you engage in discussions about it.....

well, it was a BIT tongue in cheek, but seriously, have you ever met one who was intelligent.... (fundamentalist that is) :lmao:

I love to tweak religious radicals like you PP...You usually end up speaking in tongues. Have you ever practiced snake handling in any of your religious endeavors?

[PostmodernProphet]

considering how little you know about religion, I am surprised you engage in discussions about it.....

well, it was a BIT tongue in cheek, but seriously, have you ever met one who was intelligent.... (fundamentalist that is) :lmao:

I love to tweak religious radicals like you PP...You usually end up speaking in tongues. Have you ever practiced snake handling in any of your religious endeavors?


I would seriously be interested in knowing what you have drawn from my posts that would lead you to think I was a fundamentalist?.....that is a puzzling phenomena.....

and wouldn't your "tweaking" be more effective if it were actually related to something I had said or argued?......

[underdawg]

I apologize PostmodernProphet. I had misunderstood what you were getting at. I would not necessarily say that atheists are unintelligent, but they do use faith like Christians, or any other religion, except they believe without proof that God does not exist.

[Tharagor]

I think religion and politics are like oil and water.

Religion is an INDIVIDUAL value set.
Politics are the workings of a government for a group of people.

They have nothing in common, and shouldn't mix unless you live in a theocracy.


That's probably one of the extremely few things on which we can agree.

[jafar00]

Religion sets values and laws to follow.

Politics has a way of dividing people which is not compatible with religion which is supposed to bring people together.

The two should be mutually exclusive.

[Easy90]

"I would seriously be interested in knowing what you have drawn from my posts that would lead you to think I was a fundamentalist?.....that is a puzzling phenomena.....

Maybe this will help PP:

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian. LINK (http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm)
**************

"and wouldn't your "tweaking" be more effective if it were actually related to something I had said or argued?......"
PP
When I quote you directly, and "tweak you" about what you said...you get all mad and say you're not answering any more of my questions. Here's a really recent example. YOU said: 'When Mark lists the chronology leading to Christ, he lists the maternal chronology, rather than the paternal chronology that Matthew uses....'

and then...I said:
'Which brings up another interesting Biblical dichotomy. I note the differing chronologies, but could you explain how either Matthew's (Chap 1) and/or Luke's (Chap 3) (differing) versions of Christ's paternal chronology could be? Wasn't the child God fathered by the Big Guy in the sky? I mean...Mary was a virgin...right? And since the insemination was divinely accomplished from the seed of God, how could Jesus have a paternal "chronology" back to David when his mother hadn't had sex to get pregnant?'

then, YOU said you wouldn't answer any of my questions any more.

[Nostalgic Euphoria]

I apologize PostmodernProphet. I had misunderstood what you were getting at. I would not necessarily say that atheists are unintelligent, but they do use faith like Christians, or any other religion, except they believe without proof that God does not exist.


Are you insane? We don't pray and hope that that god does not exist, there is no way that it is like faith at all, in fact many of us wish there was a god, we just have have the ability to use common sense and logic to overcome the surrounding world trying to beat some bulls**t story into our heads.

I don't see a single reason that one would believe god is real, besides everyone telling them he is. It all started when some guy(Moses) led people to safety, which is real funny because it has been proven that Egypt has never used Slave labor, then the guy wrote a book, and ever since people have followed it. It has branched into three separate religions, which happen to be the three largest, and each one is just as insane as the other. No matter how many fossils we find that prove otherwise, no matter all the carbon dating and evidence, they still remain so stuborn, that they deny that said evidence even exists.

Sorry for going on a full out attack and religion, it was something that I needed to get out of my system, and that Atheist comment set it off.

[Tharagor]

not at all, I am saying that they are not intelligent if they believe that saying "there is no god" isn't a suspension of logical thinking and a blind belief in something they cannot prove......
[hr]
the admonition against judging speaks nothing to having an opinion with respect to their intelligence......be that as it may, to say that an atheist prefers logic is absurd.....they make the claim "there is no god" in absense of proof....they thus have made the same type of faith choice that I have, though with the opposite focus....then they pretend THEIR choice was logical instead of faith based.....

not only illogical but dishonest.....


Ideas or things can only be proven to be true or to exist. It is impossible to prove that things are not or do not exist.

However, overwhelming lack of evidence in support of a concept or thing can lead one to conclude that it is false or that it doesn't exist.

Therefore, atheism relies not on faith but the basic process of logic, the antithesis of faith.

[PostmodernProphet]

Maybe this will help PP:


nope, doesn't help.....it appears you are posting from your imagination rather than from my posts....(not to mention using a very stupid definition of "fundamentalist")......

then, YOU said you wouldn't answer any of my questions any more.

true, but only because you had demonstrated you had no intent to respond to mine......[hr]

However, overwhelming lack of evidence in support of a concept or thing can lead one to conclude that it is false or that it doesn't exist.



precisely the error of logic I am referring to.....your conclusions regarding evidence help you to form a belief....you cannot say it brings you any closer to "truth" than does my belief in God.....

[Tharagor]

However, overwhelming lack of evidence in support of a concept or thing can lead one to conclude that it is false or that it doesn't exist.


precisely the error of logic I am referring to.....your conclusions regarding evidence help you to form a belief....you cannot say it brings you any closer to "truth" than does my belief in God.....


Where is the error in logic? Negative concepts cannot be proven through evidence. Therefore, overwhelming lack of evidence is a logical basis for the conclusion that something doesn't exist.

One can say that lack of belief due to lack of evidence is far more logical than belief despite lack of evidence.

[PostmodernProphet]

One can say that lack of belief due to lack of evidence is far more logical than belief despite lack of evidence.

but that would be an inaccurate portrayal of what is happening.....the assertion "there is no god" is not a lack of belief, it is a positive assertion of a "truth" that you have accepted, without evidence.....

an agnostic can accurately say they lack belief, since they take no position, neither "there is a god" or "there is no god".....an atheist cannot say the same....

[Tharagor]

One can say that lack of belief due to lack of evidence is far more logical than belief despite lack of evidence.

but that would be an inaccurate portrayal of what is happening.....the assertion "there is no god" is not a lack of belief, it is a positive assertion of a "truth" that you have accepted, without evidence.....

an agnostic can accurately say they lack belief, since they take no position, neither "there is a god" or "there is no god".....an atheist cannot say the same....


By your logic then, one cannot ever disbelieve anything. Therein lay the logical fallacy of your point.

By your logic, a Christian can no more assert that witchcraft is the work of the devil than an atheist can claim that there is no god.

There are, of course, many other reasons to claim that there is no god, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god. My favorite of which is the story of the tower of babel.

Another point I like to consider is that nearly all modern faiths make the extraordinary claim of "truth" and in doing so claim that all other "truths" are false. Even more interesting though, is that no modern religion can be linked to any paleolithic or neolithic archeology find ever made. However, the animistic beliefs of Native Americans and Native Australians seem to bear striking similarities to the evidence that has been uncovered.

Having come here only recently, and not being terribly active in the religious forums, I don't know what has been discussed. My reading of history, archeology, comparative theology, and history of Christianity has led me to the conclusion that god does not exist.

Can there be objective evidence? Of course not, there never can be objective evidence of a negative. However, such profound lack of evidence for a positive can easily leas one to conclude the opposite and is clearly far more logical than asserting a positive without any form of evidence, especially as it pertains to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

[underdawg]

I apologize PostmodernProphet. I had misunderstood what you were getting at. I would not necessarily say that atheists are unintelligent, but they do use faith like Christians, or any other religion, except they believe without proof that God does not exist.


Are you insane? We don't pray and hope that that god does not exist, there is no way that it is like faith at all, in fact many of us wish there was a god, we just have have the ability to use common sense and logic to overcome the surrounding world trying to beat some bulls**t story into our heads.

I don't see a single reason that one would believe god is real, besides everyone telling them he is. It all started when some guy(Moses) led people to safety, which is real funny because it has been proven that Egypt has never used Slave labor, then the guy wrote a book, and ever since people have followed it. It has branched into three separate religions, which happen to be the three largest, and each one is just as insane as the other. No matter how many fossils we find that prove otherwise, no matter all the carbon dating and evidence, they still remain so stuborn, that they deny that said evidence even exists.

Sorry for going on a full out attack and religion, it was something that I needed to get out of my system, and that Atheist comment set it off.



I never said that an atheist prays, goes to church or does any sort of rituals like a Christian or any religion, I just merely stated that in order to be an atheist, one must take a similar leap of faith and state that they believe there is no god. An agnostic even though he may strongly suspect that there probably isn't a god, could never definitely say there absolutly isn't one because there is no factual evidense to proove a non existence.

[David Hume]

I like to be aware of a politician's religion....after all, who could trust the judgement of an atheist on any other issues......


Considering these lists of famous atheists, freethinkers, deists and agnostics, I think we'd be better served by electing them than by voting for another Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush:

http://ffrf.org/day/famousfreethinkers/

http://ffrf.org/day/daybyname.php

(Note that some of them have already BEEN president!)

[PostmodernProphet]

By your logic then, one cannot ever disbelieve anyth

lol, no....of course you can disbelieve it.....but don't pretend that your disbelief is somehow more "logical" than someone else's belief......

that nearly all modern faiths make the extraordinary claim of "truth

including atheism.....[hr]

I like to be aware of a politician's religion....after all, who could trust the judgement of an atheist on any other issues......


Considering these lists of famous atheists, freethinkers, deists and agnostics, I think we'd be better served by electing them than by voting for another Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush:

http://ffrf.org/day/famousfreethinkers/

http://ffrf.org/day/daybyname.php

(Note that some of them have already BEEN president!)



interesting....which one of them were the atheists?......

[Tharagor]

By your logic then, one cannot ever disbelieve anyth

lol, no....of course you can disbelieve it.....but don't pretend that your disbelief is somehow more "logical" than someone else's belief......


How about using some logic to support your position? I have provided solid argument and you've turned around and replied with the equivalent of the playground "nuh uh".


that nearly all modern faiths make the extraordinary claim of "truth

including atheism.....


Interesting how you ignored the rest of my post which provided a good logical grounding for lack of faith.

Either you can support your position logically or you can't If you can, then please provide some logical refutation. If you can't, just admit it and be done with it.

[PostmodernProphet]

How about using some logic to support your position?

/shrugs....it isn't that complicated.....there is no evidence sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of a deity....the choice to believe there is a god is a faith choice, the choice to believe there is no god is a faith choice.....

which provided a good logical grounding for lack of faith.

but don't you see....thinking that what you cited is a logical grounding IS the error that atheists make......

you cannot draw a logical conclusion from a lack of evidence, apart from the conclusion that there is no proof.....

[Tharagor]

How about using some logic to support your position?

/shrugs....it isn't that complicated.....there is no evidence sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of a deity....the choice to believe there is a god is a faith choice, the choice to believe there is no god is a faith choice.....


That's the problem. You aren't making a logical argument. You're just assuming that belief or disbelief both require faith. That's an assumption, not a logical position.

Point # 1, one can only "prove" a positive, not a negative.

Point # 2, there is a mountain of evidence against the "truth" of any religion.

Point # 3, in the face of this evidence, one must either ignore it and have faith or accept it and conclude that there is no truth in religion.

It isn't faith, it's a perfectly logical conclusion.

On the other hand, choosing to believe despite the evidence against the concept, and without any evidence to support the concept, that is faith.

It's unfortunate that the word belief has been corrupted to include a definition without evidence. The English language is poorer without having a word that is belief based in evidence exclusively.

Frankly, I don't care whether or not you believe. I just cannot fathom how anyone can put faith and lack of faith on an equal footing. I don't know, maybe it comes from the flawed education most people receive in logic and debate where they are indoctrinated into the concept that all opinions are equally valid.

[PostmodernProphet]

Point # 1, one can only "prove" a positive, not a negative.

and if you cannot prove a negative, why do you pretend that a negative is a logical conclusion?......

there is a mountain of evidence against the "truth" of any religion

yawn.....in your mind, perhaps.....[hr]On the other hand, choosing to believe despite the evidence against the concept, and without any evidence to support the concept, that is faith.

faith is belief in the absence of evidence...I believe in God when I have no evidence....I make no bones about the fact that is a faith choice.....

you believe there is no God when you have no evidence....you pretend it isn't faith.....you are wrong.....

[Tharagor]

Point # 1, one can only "prove" a positive, not a negative.

and if you cannot prove a negative, why do you pretend that a negative is a logical conclusion?......


Proof implies evidence. A proof is a logical conclusion based on evidence. In this circumstance, reductio ad absurdum provides the method to conclude that theism is illogical, making atheism logical.


there is a mountain of evidence against the "truth" of any religion

yawn.....in your mind, perhaps.....


I guess, if you yawn you must be a biblical literalist. The information available in your bible indicates that the universe was created on 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM.

Otherwise you are an apologist and allow for interpretation which allows for scientific facts as to the age of the Earth, let alone the universe.

However, if that is not strong enough evidence for you, consider the story of the Tower of Babel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel):


And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.


This is the most obvious hole in the Jewish and thus Christian and Islamic traditions. Here, the bible clearly indicates that "God" is made nervous by the potential of man. "He" toppled the tower and confounded the language to prevent "man" from realizing "his" potential.

The story clearly refutes the most fundamental concept of all three religions, that "God" is all powerful and that nothing can be as powerful.


On the other hand, choosing to believe despite the evidence against the concept, and without any evidence to support the concept, that is faith.

faith is belief in the absence of evidence...I believe in God when I have no evidence....I make no bones about the fact that is a faith choice.....

you believe there is no God when you have no evidence....you pretend it isn't faith.....you are wrong.....


No, my position is well grounded in logic, as I have clearly explained through my proof.

[PostmodernProphet]

The information available in your bible indicates that the universe was created on 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM.

yawn....no, that tidbit came from a fellow named Ussher, not from scripture.....and actually, I yawn because I am NOT a bible literalist......that degree of literalism is reserved to extreme fundamentalists and atheists.....atheists love to insist on extreme literalism, far beyond anything any Christian exercises......for example, I have NEVER met a Christian who believed the universe was created in 4004 BC, yet for some reason, a person who doesn't believe in anything the bible says insists it states the universe was created then....go figure.....[hr]The story clearly refutes the most fundamental concept of all three religions, that "God" is all powerful and that nothing can be as powerful.

interesting...you take a story about how a deity basically snapped his fingers and confounded everything that humanity was up to at the time, and you draw from that the conclusion that God is NOT powerful?......

[Tharagor]

The information available in your bible indicates that the universe was created on 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM.

yawn....no, that tidbit came from a fellow named Ussher, not from scripture.....and actually, I yawn because I am NOT a bible literalist......that degree of literalism is reserved to extreme fundamentalists and atheists.....atheists love to insist on extreme literalism, far beyond anything any Christian exercises......for example, I have NEVER met a Christian who believed the universe was created in 4004 BC, yet for some reason, a person who doesn't believe in anything the bible says insists it states the universe was created then....go figure.....


Yes, Ussher calculated it, using information directly from scripture. I noticed you also ignored the analysis of the Tower of Babel story. However, both are insignificant next to you're admittion that you are not a biblical literalist, which is one of the three results of acknowledging that the Bible is inconsistent with known facts.

Like I said, I don't care what your faith is. You cannot make any rational argument that theism is the logical equivalent of atheism. It's just plain intellectually dishonest or ignorant in the extreme.

I believe that I have made an airtight case which you haven't even attempt to logically refute which is in and of itself admitting that your position is indefensible. Otherwise, you would.

[PostmodernProphet]

, reductio ad absurdum provides the method to conclude that theism is illogical


hmmm.... a reductrio ad absurdum is defined as "a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result" (wiki),,,

how exactly does that apply to your argument, which is basically "since you can't prove it's true, I am entitled to claim the opposite is true"......[hr]You cannot make any rational argument that theism is the logical equivalent of atheism

????....I made no such claim....I stated that neither theism or atheism is logically based.....they are both faith commitments.....[hr]I believe that I have made an airtight case which you haven't even attempt to logically refute which is in and of itself admitting that your position is indefensible. Otherwise, you would.

my, my, so impatient....give a guy time to type before you pretend he has run away.....

I am sorry, but you have greatly overestimated your "airtight" case.....

it simply remains that your claim a deity does not exist is completely without evidence, it lacks the nature of a reductio ad absurdum, which you claimed was it's nature....and is simply an illogical assertion.....[hr]which is one of the three results of acknowledging that the Bible is inconsistent with known facts

lol, it's also the result of a very rational conclusion that it was never intended to be understood to the degree of literalism applied by folks like you and Ussher.....

did you know that when a Christian reads the text "the cattle on a thousand hills sing praise to the lord" we don't 1) assume that cattle can sing, 2) conclude that the cattle on hill number 1001 don't believe in God, 3) conclude there are only 1000 hills in Israel.....

so, do you use the fact that we don't believe those three things as evidence to show God doesn't exist? Doing so would probably be better logic than that you've employed so far......[hr]getting back to the original purpose of this thread.....your continued assertion in the face of the obvious is WHY I don't think we should trust atheists to hold public office......

[Tharagor]

, reductio ad absurdum provides the method to conclude that theism is illogical


hmmm.... a reductrio ad absurdum is defined as "a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result" (wiki),,,

how exactly does that apply to your argument, which is basically "since you can't prove it's true, I am entitled to claim the opposite is true"......


Assuming that "God" exists one would have to conclude that the only way we could know of such a being is through evidence that such a being existed. When one considers the historical record, there is no agreement as the the character, nature, demeanor, intention, disposition, or number of such an entity.

However, when considering the historical record, there is clear connection between the description of the deity or deities and the culture and the geography of the people who worship the deity or deities.

One should also consider why a deity would create "the universe". There is no apparent purpose to the creation of "the universe". There is no observation of any apparent purpose. One cannot logically deduce that there is an apparent purpose.

Most human cultures, especially the JudeoChristianIslamic cultures hold that we are special creations of "God". However, most of our apparent "specialness" has been thoroughly debunked. We are not the only creatures with emotions, we are not the only creatures capable of abstract thought, and we are not the only creatures that communicate abstract concepts. It is true that we may have the highest level of cognition among the animal kingdom, but that is only due to our evolution.

No matter how you slice it, every aspect of evidence for the existence of a deity results in a null set.

When given a posit for which there can only be a binary value, such as "Does god exist", one can either provide evidence for the positive or one must conclude the negative.

There is a mountain of evidence that indicates the OT and the NT isn't literally true. This is something with which you apparently agree because you aren't a biblical literalist. Therefore, from the "people of the book" perspective, the core of the faith, the inerrency of the book, has been disproven, thus, no god.

From an interpretationalist perspective, there still is no evidence of the existance of any deity. Which still works with reductio ad absurdum. There is no evidence to support the positive, so one must conclude the negative, there is no god.

My position is, there is no logic behind the acceptance of the existence of any diety. However, there is clear and obvious logic for the deduction of the opposite.

Now, perhaps it's your turn to provide logical argument.

:thumbsup:

[PostmodernProphet]

When given a posit for which there can only be a binary value, such as "Does god exist", one can either provide evidence for the positive or one must conclude the negative.

the essence of the atheist error in logic.....there is no 'default' condition for truth....if there is no evidence for or against the conclusion isn't "against", it is "unknown"......

I will agree that the question Does God exist has only two alternatives, yes or no, I have chosen yes, you have chosen no.....but neither of us can say that our choice is the result of a logical conclusion, either based upon the existence of evidence or the lack of it....they are both simply choices, faith choices....

There is a mountain of evidence that indicates the OT and the NT isn't literally true.

I will agree that there is probably a great deal of difference between what you will pretend scriptures say and reality.....

There is no evidence to support the positive, so one must conclude the negative, there is no god.

it is this statement which proves that atheists are inherently irrational.....the absence of evidence merely proves the absence of evidence.....

[Easy90]

I love the "non-literalist" Christians. They came into being about the time literacy became widespread, and people began to question all the conflicting messages in the Bible. Suddenly, the term "metaphorical" became really popular around the pulpits.

did you know that when a Christian reads the text "the cattle on a thousand hills sing praise to the lord" we don't 1) assume that cattle can sing, 2) conclude that the cattle on hill number 1001 don't believe in God, 3) conclude there are only 1000 hills in Israel..... PP.

I take it you don't believe Matthew or Luke either when they list vastly differing paternal genealogy (by name...I mean, how "literal" can you get?) for Christ...back to "David"...which is an interesting "metaphor", given that Jesus was conceived in a virgin by God...

Now, for the "non-literal" Christians, explaining all the hyperbola and absurdities (that were for a couple thousand years, accepted as literal "gospel" else you could be shunned from a community at best, or burned at the stake at worst) this stuff became "poetry" and prose...or, as PP likes to say, "translation errors." Now, to a "non-literal" Christian, I suppose the telephone book could also be a metaphorical abstraction.

Non-literal "Christians" are a recently concocted breed. For 95% of the time since the years in which Christianity was invented...LITERAL interpretations of the Bible (as determined by the few who could actually read) were the only acceptable versions. People who DARED give a metaphorical spin on accepted Biblical dogma were in very deep trouble "literally!" So, now...since it's been accepted that certain physicalities as "literally" given in the Bible are wildly impossible...and you won't get tortured by an "Inquisitor" for asking about them...we have the "non-literal" Christians. That means that for nearly 2,000 years, all those people who called themselves "true Christians" and dedicated their lives to unquestioning faith in the literal Bible...were simply stupid. And the cool thing is....The Bible can mean whatever you think it means...since the words in it are simply "prose."

[PostmodernProphet]

That means that for nearly 2,000 years, all those people who called themselves "true Christians" and dedicated their lives to unquestioning faith in the literal Bible...were simply stupid.

true enough....though now they are joined by the atheists, who insist on the same "literal" translation of scripture.......

Now, to a "non-literal" Christian, I suppose the telephone book could also be a metaphorical abstraction

some parts, for example the ad text in some of the yellow pages, undoubtedly......

They came into being about the time literacy became widespread

again true.....that was about the time that folks began to realize that there were errors in the translation of the King James version.....expanded literacy included expanded knowledge of the original texts and a better understanding of what it was that the scriptures were saying.....
isn't it ironic that the two groups who stand opposed to that increased knowledge are the most fundamental of fundamentalists and the atheists?......

after reading this thread are there any who doubt my conclusion that we should suspect the ability of atheists to reach valid conclusions about other issues in life?.....[hr]Tharagor, let's consider a true reductio ad absurdum....

(a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result)

let's assume for the sake of argument that your claim "There is no evidence to support the positive, so one must conclude the negative" is true.....one must therefore conclude that any claim which has no positive evidence to support it is necessarily false....for example, for millenia there was no positive evidence to support the claim that DNA controlled the formation of cells....thus, for millenia it was not true that DNA controlled the formation of cells......that conclusion is, of course, absurd.....therefore we must conclude that ALL claims that the lack of positive proof requires one to conclude the negative are equally absurd....

now THAT is a true reductio ad absurdum....

[Tharagor]

When given a posit for which there can only be a binary value, such as "Does god exist", one can either provide evidence for the positive or one must conclude the negative.

the essence of the atheist error in logic.....there is no 'default' condition for truth....if there is no evidence for or against the conclusion isn't "against", it is "unknown"......


That's only if you ignore the evidence. There are mountains of evidence against the inerrent "truth" of any given belief system. There is no belief system that agrees with the archedological and scientific evidence thus found.


I will agree that the question Does God exist has only two alternatives, yes or no, I have chosen yes, you have chosen no.....but neither of us can say that our choice is the result of a logical conclusion, either based upon the existence of evidence or the lack of it....they are both simply choices, faith choices....


There is a mountain of evidence that indicates the OT and the NT isn't literally true.

I will agree that there is probably a great deal of difference between what you will pretend scriptures say and reality.....


I would only quote scripture. The Bible only says what it says. Once a person agrees that the Bible is not literal but that the stories are interpretaional one undermines the foundation of the faith.

Any misquote I might attempt would be immediatrely obvious, giving me no reason for me to misquote.

I wonder what would cause you to comment as you did.


There is no evidence to support the positive, so one must conclude the negative, there is no god.

it is this statement which proves that atheists are inherently irrational.....the absence of evidence merely proves the absence of evidence.....


Except, there is evidence, it's just against the veracity of the literal truth of the book on which the faith is currently based.

You happen to fall into one of the logical reactions to such proof, accept the proof and discount the literalism of the book, thus allowing one to maintain the faith without the logical contradiction caused by lack of agreement with the content of the book and the available evidence.

However, that does not put you in a position to be able to then state that faith is logically equivalent to lack of faith because interpretationalism protects itself against lack of evidence because the faith can be whatever the individual wants it to be.

Your faith, in fact, undermines your entire argument because you cannot form an argument on a changable foundation.

[PostmodernProphet]

I wonder what would cause you to comment as you did.

quite simply, years of experience arguing with atheists who say "the Bible says...." followed by some interpretation that NO Christian accepts as accurate......

atheists are masters at creating self-fulfilling arguments of inaccuracy......

Except, there is evidence

then perhaps I have been misled.....provide the evidence God does not exist.....

However, that does not put you in a position to be able to then state that faith is logically equivalent to lack of faith because interpretationalism protects itself against lack of evidence because the faith can be whatever the individual wants it to be.


again, I have not done so....agnostics speak from a lack of faith, yet they do not make the positive assertion that there is no God......theism and agnosticism are not the equivalent in terms of the faith/reason scale....theism and atheism are.......

do you have a response to the point that your position falls to the argument from absurdity?......

[Easy90]

That means that for nearly 2,000 years, all those people who called themselves "true Christians" and dedicated their lives to unquestioning faith in the literal Bible...were simply stupid.

true enough....though now they are joined by the atheists, who insist on the same "literal" translation of scripture....... PP

So, then your saying, that REAL Christianity is only about 100 years old...and came into being with the realization that the Bible means stuff that needs to be interpreted by someone educated and "nuanced" in the real meaning of all those "metaphors." Therefore, all the people who,throughout the past 2,000 years, thought the Bible was literal...were just being "stupid" and believed literally in stuff that wasn't real.

Essentially then, Bible based Christianity (the real deal) is a recent phenomenon, fully understood by only the elite who (like you) are aware of the mistakes and "translation errors." And Atheists...well, they're just like the majority of Christians over the centuries...They believe that the words of the Bible mean what they say...THEREFORE....any argument an Atheist might bring forth out of the literal words in the Bible....can be dismissed as "stupid"....just like all the Christians up until about the beginning of the 20th century. :ecstatic:

Perfect recipe for denial. No way to discuss rationality with someone who doesn't agree on the definition of the term.

[Tharagor]

Tharagor, let's consider a true reductio ad absurdum....

(a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result)

let's assume for the sake of argument that your claim "There is no evidence to support the positive, so one must conclude the negative" is true.....one must therefore conclude that any claim which has no positive evidence to support it is necessarily false....for example, for millenia there was no positive evidence to support the claim that DNA controlled the formation of cells....thus, for millenia it was not true that DNA controlled the formation of cells......that conclusion is, of course, absurd.....therefore we must conclude that ALL claims that the lack of positive proof requires one to conclude the negative are equally absurd....

now THAT is a true reductio ad absurdum....


Actually, that is a misapplication of reuctio ad absurdum because the theory of DNA did not exist until evidence for DNA existed.

[PostmodernProphet]

So, then your saying, that REAL Christianity is only about 100 years old...and came into being with the realization that the Bible means stuff that needs to be interpreted by someone educated and "nuanced" in the real meaning of all those "metaphors." Therefore, all the people who,throughout the past 2,000 years, thought the Bible was literal...were just being "stupid" and believed literally in stuff that wasn't real.

first of all, I am saying that as our knowledge and skills in translation increase we are better able to determine what it is that the scriptures are communicating.....as far as literalism and stupidity are concerned, would you deny that those who recognize scripture does NOT teach that the earth was flat and created 6000 years ago are smarter than those who would still believe the bible states that?....no, I suppose you wouldn't....you're still one of those who thinks the bible states that, aren't you......[hr]THEREFORE....any argument an Atheist might bring forth out of the literal words in the Bible....can be dismissed as "stupid"

I would say that covers it succinctly.....[hr]

Tharagor, let's consider a true reductio ad absurdum....

(a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result)

let's assume for the sake of argument that your claim "There is no evidence to support the positive, so one must conclude the negative" is true.....one must therefore conclude that any claim which has no positive evidence to support it is necessarily false....for example, for millenia there was no positive evidence to support the claim that DNA controlled the formation of cells....thus, for millenia it was not true that DNA controlled the formation of cells......that conclusion is, of course, absurd.....therefore we must conclude that ALL claims that the lack of positive proof requires one to conclude the negative are equally absurd....

now THAT is a true reductio ad absurdum....


Actually, that is a misapplication of reuctio ad absurdum because the theory of DNA did not exist until evidence for DNA existed.


/sigh....dodge.....in essence, isn't your argument simply the claim that no truth exists until it is proven?

[Tharagor]

Tharagor, let's consider a true reductio ad absurdum....

(a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result)

let's assume for the sake of argument that your claim "There is no evidence to support the positive, so one must conclude the negative" is true.....one must therefore conclude that any claim which has no positive evidence to support it is necessarily false....for example, for millenia there was no positive evidence to support the claim that DNA controlled the formation of cells....thus, for millenia it was not true that DNA controlled the formation of cells......that conclusion is, of course, absurd.....therefore we must conclude that ALL claims that the lack of positive proof requires one to conclude the negative are equally absurd....

now THAT is a true reductio ad absurdum....


Actually, that is a misapplication of reuctio ad absurdum because the theory of DNA did not exist until evidence for DNA existed.


/sigh....dodge.....in essence, isn't your argument simply the claim that no truth exists until it is proven?


In what manner is that a dodge? You misapplied reductio ad absurdum. You're attempt to turn it around failed because the argument you made regarding DNA is neither applicable to the current discussion nor does it use the technique properly.

In terms of the scientific method one cannot theorize without evidence.

Therefor it is not a dodge but a correction of your application of the tool.

As far as your argument is concerned. Since your faith is not fixed but instead dependant on an interpretation of the text there is no rational basis for your faith and thus there can be no evidence for it or argument rregarding it. This also places you in no position to judge the rationality for atheism as one not neither argue for or against an idea without any basis in objective reality.

Atheism requires an objective working definition for "god" or religion.

[PostmodernProphet]

In what manner is that a dodge?

it's a dodge because regardless of whether anyone was around to propose a theory or not does not change the fact that DNA was true before there was any evidence to prove it......it is an absurdity to argue that something is false simply because there is no evidence lying around which proves it is true......

Since your faith is not fixed but instead dependant on an interpretation of the text there is no rational basis for your faith and thus there can be no evidence for it or argument rregarding it. This also places you in no position to judge the rationality for atheism as one not neither argue for or against an idea without any basis in objective reality.

wtf does that mean in English?......

[Tharagor]

In what manner is that a dodge?

it's a dodge because regardless of whether anyone was around to propose a theory or not does not change the fact that DNA was true before there was any evidence to prove it......it is an absurdity to argue that something is false simply because there is no evidence lying around which proves it is true......


You can't use the argument retroactively. The argument only works if an idea pops spontaneously into existance.

Although, if you really want to take that tact, of course there was evidence of DNA, although it had not yet occurred to anyone. Humans have been selectively breeding animals for at least 10,000 years.

Humans became quite adept at selective breeding and created whole species. The standard cow, for example, has no direct analog in the fossile record. It was a creation of selective breeding on the part of humans.

Should anyone have spent the time to sit down and think it through, given the knowledge they had at the time, it would have been clear that something in the male parent and something in the female parent combined to dictate the traits of the child.

This is, after all, what Mendel did with his bean plant experiments long before humans had the technology to extract, analyze, or sequence DNA.

Therefor, your argument is still incorrect.


Since your faith is not fixed but instead dependant on an interpretation of the text there is no rational basis for your faith and thus there can be no evidence for it or argument rregarding it. This also places you in no position to judge the rationality for atheism as one not neither argue for or against an idea without any basis in objective reality.

wtf does that mean in English?......


I admit, some of my grammer was certainly less than eloquant, I wsa thinking faster than I was typing and I neglected to edit before I posted my reply.

It appears, and please correct me if I am wrong, that your faith is not based in a literal interpretation of the Christian bible. It is based in an interpretation of the Christian bible. Of course, I do not know which particular sect but that is, in all likelihood, irrelelvant.

Interptetional sects are fluid, they can absorb any evidence against the concept of a deity, just by changing their interpretation. They are also have no objective base. One cannot argue either for or against such because it lacks an objective base. One can only argue pro or con for something that is fixed and has well established working definitions.

Perhaps if you could provide some working definitions framing your particular sect we could approach this from a more rational angle.

My first question would be: In your particular sect, is your deity all powerful and the one true deity?

[PostmodernProphet]

The argument only works if an idea pops spontaneously into existance.

lol, like a universe?......

Humans have been selectively breeding animals for at least 10,000 years.

/shrugs....they've been having conversations with metaphysical deities even longer.....

Therefor, your argument is still incorrect.

no, your presumption that something is false, simply because there is no evidence it is true, is incorrect.....[hr]please correct me if I am wrong, that your faith is not based in a literal interpretation of the Christian bible

okay, I will correct you...my faith is based upon a literal interpretation of the Christian bible, just not the interpretation that extreme fundamentalists and atheists insist is the 'literal' interpretation of the Bible...I stated my understanding of the creation story somewhere around here....was it this thread?.....

your particular sect

lol, I don't belong to any 'sect'.....just mainstream evangelical Christianity.....

has well established working definitions

I doubt any Christian would accept a working definition of 'deity' proposed by an atheist....

[Tharagor]

The argument only works if an idea pops spontaneously into existance.

lol, like a universe?......


Oh my, a jab at science.

:thumbsup:


Humans have been selectively breeding animals for at least 10,000 years.

/shrugs....they've been having conversations with metaphysical deities even longer.....


We're not really sure, the archeological record supports the concept that animistic religions not unlike those of the Native Americans and Australian Oborigenes predating what we consider modern religion.

However, neither point is here no there, I was debating the DNA argument you made.

Therefor, your argument is still incorrect.

no, your presumption that something is false, simply because there is no evidence it is true, is incorrect.....
[/quote]

How so? You have yet to make a logical argument to support your position. I provided an argument. You tried to rebutt by using the same tool in the same manner to show contradiction and you failed because I was able to counter by explaining how you misused it and also by demonstrating that the evidence was there, people didn't look for it until later using no tools more sophisticated than they had at the time you posited.

quote]please correct me if I am wrong, that your faith is not based in a literal interpretation of the Christian bible

okay, I will correct you...my faith is based upon a literal interpretation of the Christian bible, just not the interpretation that extreme fundamentalists and atheists insist is the 'literal' interpretation of the Bible...I stated my understanding of the creation story somewhere around here....was it this thread?.....

your particular sect

lol, I don't belong to any 'sect'.....just mainstream evangelical Christianity.....
[/quote]

Christianity is far from one religion. It doesn't matter whether or not you accept it, you have a sect. Interesting though, I thought Evangelicals were biblical literalists (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/boards_main.AllCategories.asp?Category=93):

:clapper:

Sorry, I know a little more about religion than your average atheist. I've been studying religions for over 20 years trying to decide whether or not I wanted to believe.

:thumbsup:

Shall we try again?

Whether it's call it a sect or demonination christians tend to fall into one group or the other (http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Denominations/).

Of course, you could be a free-form christian without any standard beleif.

However, no matter how you slice it, you appear to have no leg to stand on to say that yuor decision is a logical one or as logical as the atheistic position.

That's okay though. If a person feels they need to have religion in their lives, fine.

[Easy90]

would you deny that those who recognize scripture does NOT teach that the earth was flat and created 6000 years ago are smarter than those who would still believe the bible states that?....no, I suppose you wouldn't....you're still one of those who thinks the bible states that, aren't you......

Nope... I think Creationists believe it based on a literal interpretation of the genealogy in Genesis. That has been a classical argument of Creationists for ever.. Now, the neo-Christions (non-literalists like you) have become aware of the scientific advancements over the past two hundred years that prove the earth is billions of years old...and have come to develop this "ID" stuff to try to stem the tide of doubters... And frankly, the neo-Christians are as funny as the hard-line Creationists like that guy in Kentucky who has the "Creationist Museum.." etc. But still, even though you say you've never met a Christian who believes those things....you must have never been in the Midwest...or South...because they're thick as thieves. Frankly, I grew up in the Southern Midwest, and virtually every "Christian" I ever met growing up believed such things. I even recall all the Fundies doubting that the Russians had orbited Sputnik because after all...how could that be if the world was flat?:lmao:

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh my, a jab at science

no, just your interpretation of it.....[hr]You have yet to make a logical argument to support your position

lol, only if you ignore every post I have made since you joined the argument....

Shall we try again?


at what?....I am a mainstream evangelical Christian....I don't care what you or belief.net claim......
you appear to have no leg to stand on to say that yuor decision is a logical one

???...and when have I ever claimed that....I have stated on several occassions that my choice was a faith choice.....as is yours......[hr]Now, the neo-Christions

lol......you really are an idiot, aren't you.....that "neo-Christian" doctrine has been mainstream since a hundred years before you were born, son....

I take that back....I suspect you aren't really an idiot when you pretend all the Christians you ever met believe the earth to be flat and created 6000 years ago....I suspect the truth of the matter is, you are lying your ass off.....either way, you are a joke.....

Atheist like you are the reason I started by saying I had never met an atheist who should be allowed to hold political office....they're either idiots or dishonest.....

[Pookie]

Well, back to the original question, I just had to re-think my own religious prejudices (bad term?) with Romney in the race. In the beginning, I let my preconceived notions about Mormonism cloud my perception of Romney as a person and a viable candidate. I dismissed Mitt Romney as a cult member and everything he said I found fault with only because of his religion.
It wasn't until I realized that it was the press encouraging this bad thought process, exploiting his religion, rather than Romney himself. His platform was shaped around good values and his political experience, not his religion.
So, no, religion doesn't belong in politics at all, nor in government, but because of our own beliefs, we tend to form opinions around our own agendas. It is very, very hard to separate the two, and I doubt we are ever going to be successful in being able to completely keep religion out of politics, and vice versa.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Tharagor]

Oh my, a jab at science

no, just your interpretation of it.....


What, at my interpretation of science? The Big Bang is all but proven by the available evidence (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15113168/).


You have yet to make a logical argument to support your position

lol, only if you ignore every post I have made since you joined the argument....


No, I have read and thoughtfully considered your arguments, which boil down to, "The Bible isn't literal so you can't use it's inconsistencies or it's incompatibilities with known fact as evidence" and "You must have proof of lack of existence in order to logically disbelieve".

The first is proof that your faith is without foundation because it depends on interpretation and that interpretation is subject to change.

The second is entirely without foundation because all schools of logic teach that while there can be no evidence for a negative answer, one can conclude a negative answer when the evidence does not support the positive.

All that needs to be determined are the functional definitions involved.


Shall we try again?


at what?....I am a mainstream evangelical Christian....I don't care what you or belief.net claim......


The term mainstream evangelical Christian is, for the most part, a none-sense term. It is more a general concept than an actual sect or denomination. Evangelicals are also a very small portion of the Christian population in the United States, as indicated by the 1990 and 2001 censuses (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0074.pdf).

Of course, this is not my interpretation. It is the interpretation of those surveyed. Considering that the 2001 census shows the population of self-identified "evangelicals" constituted 1,032,000 out of 159,506,000, they amount to only 0.64% of the total Christian population of the United States.

In fact, according to the numbers, there were 2.74 Jews in the United States for every Evangelical. Even more surprisingly there were more Muslims and Buddhists than Evangelicals in 2001, but the margin was insignificant.

So, I'd really like to know how you justify the term "mainstream Evangelical Christian". It would seem to me that Evangelicals are hardly mainstream.

:thumbsup:


you appear to have no leg to stand on to say that yuor decision is a logical one

???...and when have I ever claimed that....I have stated on several occassions that my choice was a faith choice.....as is yours......


Admittedly, you didn't. I made that comment to show the utter lunacy of placing faith on the same level as lack of faith. One might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) as any other deity, the Christian one included.

Considering that the advances of the Age of Enlightenment and the progress of science is the only reason why Biblical Literalism began to fall by the wayside and the history of the faith, one can only conclude that continued progress of scientific knowledge will only serve to dilute the faith further.



Atheist like you are the reason I started by saying I had never met an atheist who should be allowed to hold political office....they're either idiots or dishonest.....


I'd certainly support an atheist over an evangelical any day:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9SUmqhfQDOI

~ Ramen

[David Hume]

Hey Tharagor, I love your posts. But, don't you know that arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead? (I believe it was Thomas Paine who said those wise words. . . .)

You're never gonna convince someone who has the "God gene" that what is plain & simple to folks like you and me (the archaeological record, linguistics, DNA historiographies, etc.) has any relevance whatsoever whenever it comes to the fairytales & myths to which they so desperately cling. In fact, many of them would argue (and if you've heard about the Creation Museum in Kentucky, you'll know this is true) that dinosaurs & humans existed side-by-side. Some would even go so far as to say God planted the archaeological record in order to test one's faith.

But it seems odd to me that a deity would go so far as to try to trick the creatures he purportedly loves & wants to "call home" one day. In fact, it seems downright unreasonable. And like I said, arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

[Tharagor]

Hey Tharagor, I love your posts. But, don't you know that arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead? (I believe it was Thomas Paine who said those wise words. . . .)

You're never gonna convince someone who has the "God gene" that what is plain & simple to folks like you and me (the archaeological record, linguistics, DNA historiographies, etc.) has any relevance whatsoever whenever it comes to the fairytales & myths to which they so desperately cling. In fact, many of them would argue (and if you've heard about the Creation Museum in Kentucky, you'll know this is true) that dinosaurs & humans existed side-by-side. Some would even go so far as to say God planted the archaeological record in order to test one's faith.

But it seems odd to me that a deity would go so far as to try to trick the creatures he purportedly loves & wants to "call home" one day. In fact, it seems downright unreasonable. And like I said, arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.


Thank you very much for the comment. I hate to say it, but I do have the tendency to tilt at windmills.

I wear the scars of four years of Yahoo! News MBs. I was one of those "chronic posters".

It became apparent to me a while ago that PmP isn't entirely logical and part of me wanted to see where this would go.

[sigh]

Perhaps I dragged it on a bit too long.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Creation Museum and have even watched some fundy documentaries. After all, you can't disagree with that which you don't understand.

[PostmodernProphet]

What, at my interpretation of science? The Big Bang is all but proven by the available evidence.

????....the Big Bang isn't inconsistent with creation....I can even tell you what the Big Bang sounded like....it was "Let there be...." in Hebrew......[hr]No, I have read and thoughtfully considered your arguments, which boil down to

not even close...my arguments are best summarized by "claiming that your conclusions are based upon evidence, when you have no evidence, is not only irrational, but dishonest".......[hr]So, I'd really like to know how you justify the term "mainstream Evangelical Christian"

justify?......why would I need to "justify" it.....the majority of Protestants are evangelicals.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Mainline_Protestant_Evangelicalism[hr]But, don't you know that arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason

renounced the use of reason?....hardly....I have merely pointed out the atheist's misuse of it.....

It became apparent to me a while ago that PmP isn't entirely logical

lol......

[Tharagor]

What, at my interpretation of science? The Big Bang is all but proven by the available evidence.

????....the Big Bang isn't inconsistent with creation....I can even tell you what the Big Bang sounded like....it was "Let there be...." in Hebrew......


‘ĕlôhı̂ym âmar

..and they said.


No, I have read and thoughtfully considered your arguments, which boil down to

not even close...my arguments are best summarized by "claiming that your conclusions are based upon evidence, when you have no evidence, is not only irrational, but dishonest".......[hr]So, I'd really like to know how you justify the term "mainstream Evangelical Christian"

justify?......why would I need to "justify" it.....the majority of Protestants are evangelicals.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Mainline_Protestant_Evangelicalism[hr]But, don't you know that arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason

Oh? They are? I'm curious, with what authority do you make such a claim when the objective data indicates that you are wrong?

I'll admit that you provide an interesting link. However, when considered against objective evidence one is compelled to consider information at the link quite suspect.

:thumbsup:


renounced the use of reason?....hardly....I have merely pointed out the atheist's misuse of it.....


Sure you have and people have rallied around you for it.

:thumbsup:

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh? They are? I'm curious, with what authority do you make such a claim when the objective data indicates that you are wrong?

"objective" data?....I recommend you read the footnote appended to your "objective" data.......[hr]Sure you have and people have rallied around you for it.

so, you "win" because the three atheists on the board have posted?.......lol.....all the three of you have done is illustrated my opening comment.....[hr]Defining Evangelicalism....
http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html

the problem is you are employing the secular media's definition of "evangelical", which for some reason has been expanded to include fundamentalists....even though, in the theological sense, the Protestant denominations historically were divided into "fundamentalist", "evangelical", and "pentacostal/charismatic" for hundreds of years.....

in addition to the "Evangelical" category of your "objective" data you would have to add many of the denominations listed.....the Methodists, for example, were founded as a separate denomination simply BECAUSE of their views on being evangelical.....are you now going to pretend they aren't evangelicals?.....add in the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the UCoC (the largest Protestant denomination in the US).....all of these have historically been "evangelical" denominations....

[moses2792796]

The Big Bang is not entirely necessary, nor is it the only explanation. Anyway, if the universe began as a singularity how do you explain fluctuations in density?

[PostmodernProphet]

in the mean time....let's recall that the issue of 'evangelical' arose because you were trying to insinuate that the view the earth is 6000 years old and flat is widely held among Christians.....

personally, the only folks I can think of who would stoop to claim that most Christians think the earth is 6000 years old and flat would have to be atheists.....that's why you can't trust atheists to be engaged in politics.....either inherently dishonest or incurably stupid.....[hr]I'd certainly support an atheist over an evangelical any day

I'm sure you would...so would the other five percent of the population who consider themselves atheists......the rest of us might not be as certain......

[Easy90]

Well, back to the original question, I just had to re-think my own religious prejudices (bad term?) with Romney in the race. In the beginning, I let my preconceived notions about Mormonism cloud my perception of Romney as a person and a viable candidate. I dismissed Mitt Romney as a cult member and everything he said I found fault with only because of his religion.
It wasn't until I realized that it was the press encouraging this bad thought process, exploiting his religion, rather than Romney himself. His platform was shaped around good values and his political experience, not his religion.
So, no, religion doesn't belong in politics at all, nor in government, but because of our own beliefs, we tend to form opinions around our own agendas. It is very, very hard to separate the two, and I doubt we are ever going to be successful in being able to completely keep religion out of politics, and vice versa.
Purrs,
Pookie

A valiant attempt to "re-rail" the thread Pooks. And you made a good point too! I agree re: Romney. I'm not a big fan of his religion, but I've met quite a few Mormons who are damned decent people...and he seems to be also...for a politician anyway. I think the answer to the question about whether religion belongs politics is kind of moot. Religion, as many of the most devoutly religious people practice it IS politics. And because of the track record of atrocities created in the name of religions all throughout history, it's wise to avoid electing politicians who put their religion out there as their guiding mainstay.

[piratemonkey]

I'm sure you would...so would the other five percent of the population who consider themselves atheists......the rest of us might not be as certain......


You'd vote for an evangelical over an atheist, just because of the relgious position of each?

[PostmodernProphet]

You'd vote for an evangelical over an atheist, just because of the relgious position of each?

I would never vote for an atheist because I have yet to meet an atheist who was in truth a rational person, even though they profess reason to be their prime motivation.....

so yes, I would vote for an evangelical before I voted for an atheist....I would vote for a Catholic before I voted for an atheist, I would vote for a Muslim before I voted for an atheist, I would vote for an agnostic before I voted for an atheist.....for that matter, I would vote for a cement lawn ornament before I voted for an atheist.......

[piratemonkey]

You'd vote for an evangelical over an atheist, just because of the relgious position of each?

I would never vote for an atheist because I have yet to meet an atheist who was in truth a rational person, even though they profess reason to be their prime motivation.....


So how is this not religious bigotry?

If someone said they'd never vote for a Baptist because Baptists are irrational, would you find that position acceptable?

[Easy90]

Folks like PP hate Atheists because essentially they are saying the whole religious paradigm is a hoax. (Which, of course, it is.) With the degree of investment these people put into their religiosity, it's no wonder they want to circle the wagons and eliminate the "non-believers." Religion is their life...and they're not about to easily wake up and say..."hell...l have been bamboozled." I find the fire with which religious zealots hate and defend their paradigms both amusing and scary. It's more scary if they have any power...which is exactly why the radical Muslim movement on this planet is a real threat.

[PostmodernProphet]

So how is this not religious bigotry?

are you admitting then, that atheism is a religion?......[hr]Folks like PP hate Atheists because essentially they are saying the whole religious paradigm is a hoax

now why would you say that, when I have spent so much time explaining it is because of their ignorance and dishonesty.....

I find the fire with which religious zealots hate and defend their paradigms

and how do you feel about the fire expended by the atheists defending themselves here?......[hr]If someone said they'd never vote for a Baptist because Baptists are irrational, would you find that position acceptable?

are they able to demonstrate that irrationality, as I have here?.....would you vote for a Baptist along the lines of the Rev. Phelps?.....I wouldn't.....

[piratemonkey]

So how is this not religious bigotry?

are you admitting then, that atheism is a religion?......

Using your religion as a bludgeon to judge people that don't believe what you believe is a problem to all thinking people...

A lack of belief doesn't constitute a belief.

[Deadshot]

Religion is truly the opiate of the masses.

But you cannot regard someone as irrational or idiotic based solely on their religious beliefs, or lack there of. We're a democracy, not a theocracy - hence one's religion does not come into play. Realistically we know it comes into play when certain people, like PP, won't vote for you until they here your views on God, but in life religion almost never comes into play.

I don't need to know the religious beliefs or practices of my Accountant, Banker, Grocer, the guy that cooks my food at a restaurant, my kids teacher or coaches or the majority of people who's lives touch mine. All I care about is that you do the job that I pay and expect you to do.

If a political candidate is honest and does his/her job in their appointed office what they're religion is doesn't matter to me...and shouldn't really matter to you!:innocent:

[Wndrtch]

Whoa...am I understanding you correctly? You think that the judgement of an atheist is suspect?
Why?

well, it was a BIT tongue in cheek, but seriously, have you ever met one who was intelligent....I mean basically an atheist is an agnostic who doesn't even understand what "we don't know" means.......


Now now...

Remember your Christain teachings? Judgement is for God, not man. You're judging the athiest here, not his sin.

Of course, I am assuming you to be a Christian.

[PostmodernProphet]

But you cannot regard someone as irrational or idiotic based solely on their religious beliefs, or lack there of.
and
You're judging the athiest here, not his sin.

we covered this a few pages ago.....I am doing neither....I am voicing an opinion regarding the inherent contradiction between the statement "there is no god" and a professed belief in the superiority of reason......[hr]
A lack of belief doesn't constitute a belief.

that covers agnostics, but this thread is about atheists.....they don't practice a lack of belief, they make a positive assertion that there is no god......THAT is a belief.....

[Easy90]

I have a lick of belief about the existence of God... Am I agnostic, or Atheist. I'm so confused! LOL! PP, you have GOT to be kidding!

[David Hume]

You'd vote for an evangelical over an atheist, just because of the relgious position of each?

I would never vote for an atheist because I have yet to meet an atheist who was in truth a rational person, even though they profess reason to be their prime motivation.....

so yes, I would vote for an evangelical before I voted for an atheist....I would vote for a Catholic before I voted for an atheist, I would vote for a Muslim before I voted for an atheist, I would vote for an agnostic before I voted for an atheist.....for that matter, I would vote for a cement lawn ornament before I voted for an atheist.......


Could you vote for someone who said this?

""The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

How 'bout this?

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

Or this?

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

This?

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

What about a person who said this?

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

How 'bout this fella?

"I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe."

What about someone who felt this way about the Bible?

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

Without the men who uttered these quotes, there would be no America. You voted for a guy like W., who is an evangelical & has almost single-handedly destroyed the country.

Your "theory" is made of shit. It stinks at first, then dries up & blows away in the wind.[hr]

are you admitting then, that atheism is a religion?......[hr][quote]


Admit? Only an ignoramus would proclaim such a thing.

This is actually one of my favorite "tricks" the evangelicals try to play----atheism is a religion, science is their god. Ever heard of Margaret Sanger? She used to have this publication with a masthead that read "no gods, no masters." In order to have a religion, one must have an object of worship. Usually, this object of worship involves a sky fairy or some other figment of the imagination.

PS: I'm not an atheist. But I tend to agree with them a heckuva lot more than I do evangelicals who are high on Gerin Oil.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have a lick of belief about the existence of God... Am I agnostic, or Atheist. I'm so confused! LOL! PP, you have GOT to be kidding!


/shrugs....if you are confused about the difference between the two, buy a dictionary....[hr]Your "theory" is made of sh1t. It stinks at first, then dries up & blows away in the wind

would you vote for me?....no?.....what a coincidence, that's the same reason I won't vote for an atheist.....

In order to have a religion, one must have an object of worship - reason......

[David Hume]

we covered this a few pages ago.....I am doing neither....I am voicing an opinion regarding the inherent contradiction between the statement "there is no god" and a professed belief in the superiority of reason......[hr]

that covers agnostics, but this thread is about atheists.....they don't practice a lack of belief, they make a positive assertion that there is no god......THAT is a belief.....





There is no contradiction. Of course reason is superior. In the real world, reason builds skyscrapers & faith loads up jets full of zealots who knock the buildings down. Scientists who use reason search for answers to problems, and their results help us combat & cure serious medical conditions. Those who are proponents of creationism do nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother. You're making an assumption based on the flawed concept of irreducible complexity. I would imagine you're also one who worships the gaps in the fossil record, for that is the only place your god is found these days. I can practically see you in my mind's eye, worshipping at the foot of Mount Improbable. You might as well say, "I [insert your name here] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it was designed." The reasoning that underlies "intelligent design" theory is lazy and defeatist----the classic "God of the Gaps" reasoning. Richard Dawkins calls it "The Argument from Personal Incredulity."

You further make the mistake, as Daniel Dennett pointed out, that "it takes a big fancy smart thing to make a lesser thing (which is called) the trickle-down theory of creation. You'll never see a spear making a spear maker. You'll never see a horse show making a blacksmith. You'll never see a pot making a potter." Darwin's discovery of a workable process that does that very counterintuitive thing is what makes his contribution to human thought so revolutionary. God is not a necessary component. Only reason and the power of observation need apply. Only you appear to be espousing a contradiction, or at the very least, something that is highly unnecessary in modern life. The awe the findings of reason inspires in me makes the awe that people talk about in respect to religious experiences seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. And that's all religion is, once you strip away the claptrap & ceremony. Just a bunch of people basically saying "I don't know how it works" and worshipping the god in the gaps of human knowledge. That's all god really is. The stuff we don't know yet.

And a belief doesn't make a religion. Do you have a good grasp of the King's English? I could believe that vanilla ice cream is superior to chocolate, but does that make it a religion? That seems to be your assertion.[hr]

would you vote for me?....


Someone who doesn't understand basic elementary biology? I'm sorry, I like my elected officials to employ reason. I vote for religious folks all the time, just not the ones who still believe that evolution is some ill-founded theory. It's very unreasonable to ignore mountains of evidence in preference of rank superstition. We have seven years of recent history to show you what kind of leadership that gains you.

So, no, I think we've all learned our lesson to only vote for grownups from now on.

[PostmodernProphet]

Someone who doesn't understand basic elementary biology?

???.....did I miss our discussion of biology?....which page was that on?......

just not the ones who still believe that evolution is some ill-founded theory

well deja vue me with a stick, I seem to have missed our debate on evolution as well.....

I'm not sure who you think you have been arguing with, David.....but you might want to take a moment and read the fucking thread before you begin to participate, eh?.....

[Tharagor]

:clapper:

Beautiful post!

[PostmodernProphet]

There is no contradiction. Of course reason is superior. In the real world, reason builds skyscrapers & faith loads up jets full of zealots who knock the buildings down. Scientists who use reason search for answers to problems, and their results help us combat & cure serious medical conditions. Those who are proponents of creationism do nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother. You're making an assumption based on the flawed concept of irreducible complexity. I would imagine you're also one who worships the gaps in the fossil record, for that is the only place your god is found these days. I can practically see you in my mind's eye, worshipping at the foot of Mount Improbable. You might as well say, "I [insert your name here] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it was designed." The reasoning that underlies "intelligent design" theory is lazy and defeatist----the classic "God of the Gaps" reasoning. Richard Dawkins calls it "The Argument from Personal Incredulity."

You further make the mistake, as Daniel Dennett pointed out, that "it takes a big fancy smart thing to make a lesser thing (which is called) the trickle-down theory of creation. You'll never see a spear making a spear maker. You'll never see a horse show making a blacksmith. You'll never see a pot making a potter." Darwin's discovery of a workable process that does that very counterintuitive thing is what makes his contribution to human thought so revolutionary. God is not a necessary component. Only reason and the power of observation need apply. Only you appear to be espousing a contradiction, or at the very least, something that is highly unnecessary in modern life. The awe the findings of reason inspires in me makes the awe that people talk about in respect to religious experiences seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. And that's all religion is, once you strip away the claptrap & ceremony. Just a bunch of people basically saying "I don't know how it works" and worshipping the god in the gaps of human knowledge. That's all god really is. The stuff we don't know yet.

And a belief doesn't make a religion. Do you have a good grasp of the King's English? I could believe that vanilla ice cream is superior to chocolate, but does that make it a religion? That seems to be your assertion.

do you realize that not one word of that deals with any of the issues we have been arguing about?.....why don't you argue with the posters instead of with your assumptions....[hr]Could you vote for someone who said this?


Second Inaugural Address of March 1865: "Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Abraham_Lincoln.html

When any church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification for membership, the Savior's condensed statement of the substance of both law and Gospel, 'Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and thy neighbor as thyself' that church will I join with all my heart and all my soul.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnsfaith.htm[/quote]

and my favorite....

..I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion." [July 31, 1846]

[url]http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnsfaith.htm[hr]When any church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification for membership, the Savior's condensed statement of the substance of both law and Gospel, 'Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and thy neighbor as thyself' that church will I join with all my heart and all my soul.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnsfaith.htm[/quote]

and my favorite....

..I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion." [July 31, 1846]

[url]http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnsfaith.htm[hr]test
When any church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification for membership, the Savior's condensed statement of the substance of both law and Gospel, 'Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and thy neighbor as thyself' that church will I join with all my heart and all my soul.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnsfaith.htm[/quote]

and my favorite....

..I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion." [July 31, 1846]

[url]http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnsfaith.htm[hr]
one of my favorites....

I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_religion

[Pookie]

Perhaps unkind words and assumptions might be anathema to a reply? All of us here have a right to our own opinion, okay?
And I have already made my point here.
Pookie

[PostmodernProphet]

The awe the findings of reason inspires in me makes the awe that people talk about in respect to religious experiences seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. And that's all religion is, once you strip away the claptrap & ceremony.

doesn't that contradict this....

Me: are you admitting then, that atheism is a religion?......


You: Admit? Only an ignoramus would proclaim such a thing.

Aren't you just a Holy Roller of Reason?

[David Hume]

Non-literal "Christians" are a recently concocted breed. For 95% of the time since the years in which Christianity was invented...LITERAL interpretations of the Bible (as determined by the few who could actually read) were the only acceptable versions. People who DARED give a metaphorical spin on accepted Biblical dogma were in very deep trouble "literally!" So, now...since it's been accepted that certain physicalities as "literally" given in the Bible are wildly impossible...and you won't get tortured by an "Inquisitor" for asking about them...we have the "non-literal" Christians. That means that for nearly 2,000 years, all those people who called themselves "true Christians" and dedicated their lives to unquestioning faith in the literal Bible...were simply stupid. And the cool thing is....The Bible can mean whatever you think it means...since the words in it are simply "prose."



More proof that God has smaller & smaller gaps in which to hide. Soon, the God of the Gaps is gonna be a lot like the grin on a Cheshire Cat. Slowly fading away until one day. . . .Poof! Gone! Just like that![hr]

Aren't you just a Holy Roller of Reason?



No such thing. Reason is the only oracle of humankind. Why are you stuck on the make-believe & fairy-tales? Come, sit at the big people's table. . . .
[hr]
Second Inaugural Address of March 1865: "Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."



Sure, he wasn't talkin about himself. Do you even know the first thing about Lincoln's faith (or lack thereof?).

Of course you don't. You've demonstrated again & again that you're an enemy of reason & that you prefer crude superstition to verifiable fact.
[hr]
Someone who doesn't understand basic elementary biology?

???.....did I miss our discussion of biology?....which page was that on?......

just not the ones who still believe that evolution is some ill-founded theory

well deja vue me with a stick, I seem to have missed our debate on evolution as well.....

I'm not sure who you think you have been arguing with, David.....but you might want to take a moment and read the f_cking thread before you begin to participate, eh?.....


What, I can't bring in the absurd things you say in other threads & comment on them here? You are a creationist, are you not? And we're talking about reason of late in this thread, something you seem to be missing.[hr]
The awe the findings of reason inspires in me makes the awe that people talk about in respect to religious experiences seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. And that's all religion is, once you strip away the claptrap & ceremony.

doesn't that contradict this....

Me: are you admitting then, that atheism is a religion?......


You: Admit? Only an ignoramus would proclaim such a thing.

Aren't you just a Holy Roller of Reason?


I'm beginning to wonder if you have a grasp at all on the meanings of the multi-syllabic words found in the English dictionary. There's nothing at all contradictory about what I said. I think you meant another word that starts with "c"----"complementary."

[PostmodernProphet]

Reason is the only oracle of humankind

you sound more and more like a devout believer with every post......

Do you even know the first thing about Lincoln's faith (or lack thereof?

enough to know he has more in common with me than with any atheist.....

That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular... I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_religion

What, I can't bring in the absurd things you say in other threads & comment on them here? You are a creationist, are you not?

in the sense that atheists use the word "Creationist", no....do I believe God created everything?....yes.....am I ignorant of biology or do I totally reject evolution?....no.....are you ignorant of my beliefs?.....yes.....hence my post......

And we're talking about reason of late in this thread, something you seem to be missing.

and what YOU seem to have missed is the topic of discussion, which is the variance between the atheist's promotion of "reason" and the total lack of it exhibited by the claim "there is no god"........all you have addressed, no let me rephrase that....all you have praised.....is reason.....

There's nothing at all contradictory about what I said

ah, well far be it for an ignoramus like me to suggest that the rapture you say you experience when you come into the presence of the Almighty Reason smells of "religion"......[hr]Swing low, Sweet Cognizance, comin' for to carry me hooooome....

[David Hume]

One cannot have a religion w/o a god. Why do you want to cheapen your own "experience" so much? And what is with the visceral need of evangelicals to cast science as "religion?" Please, don't try to cut reason down to the level of absurdities. There's really no comparison.

As for Lincoln, you don't know him at all:

-In regard to a Supreme Being he entertained at times Agnostic and even Atheistic opinions. During the later years of his life, however, he professed a sort of Deistic belief, but be did not accept the Christian or anthropomorphic conception of a Deity.

-So far as the doctrine of immortality is concerned, he was an Agnostic.

-He did not believe in the Christian doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He believed that Burns and Paine were as much inspired as David and Paul.

-He did not believe in the doctrine of Christ's divinity. He affirmed that Jesus was either the son of Joseph and Mary, or the illegitimate son of Mary.

-He did not believe in the doctrine of a special creation.

-He believed in the theory of Evolution, so far as this theory had been developed in his time.

-He did not believe in miracles and special providence. He believed that all things are governed by immutable laws, and that miracles and special providence, in the evangelical sense of these terms, are impossible.

-He rejected the doctrine of total, or inherent depravit