|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:19 pm
Tirion I think it would be great to have an Agnostic President, because 'The Seperation Of Church And State' is bullshit. I don't mind people using religion as a moral compass or anything, but when they are so blinded by religion that they immediately vote for the Ultra-Christy candidate there is something wrong. An Agnostic President would bring a very good, and new feeling into out Government. We'd finally have someone in there who wouldn't be making his decision based off Religious Morallity, or the fact they have to oppose the Religious Morallity in order to have a chance to get elected. When it comes to having a president, or any elected official, I vote for who I think will do the job better. I'm not blindly voting for one party, but I generally do have more in common with Democrats.
The biggest thing that pisses me off about voters, the ones that actually vote, is that a lot of them will vote on the character of the person and the personal issues that he has. I'm fine with people voting for a president on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and things like that, at least that's a plus compared to "I voted for the president because he knows how to shake a hand good." Or they'll vote for the president because of his religious status, or his gender, or anything else. It's kind of pathetic how ignorant our society is. Although, that is their view of things, so.
Except for the fact that an Agnostic president wouldn't necessarily accept God has the ultimate creator in his life I think a lot of people wouldn't vote for one because they easily and often compare angosticism to atheism and the two are very different when comparing. A lot of them also think it's the God or the Devil so obviously they would be a person of the devil, in general.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:28 pm
Captain_Sipid_Peabody As a Libertarian Atheist, I just have to say that I see a 0% chance of there ever being an Atheistic Libertarian president. Quite frankly, I think an Atheistic president would be the best. That way he's able to judge situations based on what the constitution says instead of what the Bible says. A President shouldn't always be attempting to determine if his decisions jive with traditional Biblical morality. That leads to ineffective leadership, and probably clear violations of our rights. An Atheist would probably always maintain a separation of Church and State as well. Meaning, he wouldn't give any national money to any kind of religious organizations.
It's bullshit really, I think. I feel for yah though. I actually just re-looked up the definition of atheism and went to a few sites to confirm (so it's not just the dictionary definition). It's really not even that bad. All an aethist really is, is just someone who doesn't accept God or Gods and just goes about life with his fellow man/woman. I mean, it's actually disgusting how the Churches label and stereotype atheists.
This is more of a general statement and towards Tirion. I don't think Church should even have that much power. I see no reason why religion should be above the law in any terms. I see no positives that come from it other than the freedom of expression. While, it may be important to have I don't think that freedom of expression is really worth it. For example, there was just something in the newspaper about how clerics had reports of sexual abuse and such and did nothing about them. I don't know. Here's a better example, the Pope is going to ban homosexuals from becoming preists and such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:41 pm
ButterBalls Tirion I think it would be great to have an Agnostic President, because 'The Seperation Of Church And State' is bullshit. I don't mind people using religion as a moral compass or anything, but when they are so blinded by religion that they immediately vote for the Ultra-Christy candidate there is something wrong. An Agnostic President would bring a very good, and new feeling into out Government. We'd finally have someone in there who wouldn't be making his decision based off Religious Morallity, or the fact they have to oppose the Religious Morallity in order to have a chance to get elected. When it comes to having a president, or any elected official, I vote for who I think will do the job better. I'm not blindly voting for one party, but I generally do have more in common with Democrats.
The biggest thing that pisses me off about voters, the ones that actually vote, is that a lot of them will vote on the character of the person and the personal issues that he has. I'm fine with people voting for a president on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and things like that, at least that's a plus compared to "I voted for the president because he knows how to shake a hand good." Or they'll vote for the president because of his religious status, or his gender, or anything else. It's kind of pathetic how ignorant our society is. Although, that is their view of things, so.
Except for the fact that an Agnostic president wouldn't necessarily accept God has the ultimate creator in his life I think a lot of people wouldn't vote for one because they easily and often compare angosticism to atheism and the two are very different when comparing. A lot of them also think it's the God or the Devil so obviously they would be a person of the devil, in general.Actually I think we've only had one Catholic president. We have had 4 Unitarian presidents, though. (But none of them in my lifetime)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:37 pm
Do you people not know that politicians will say anything to get elected? I think we've had more than one president who believes there's no god. When your actions tend to give rise to the conclusion that you don't think there's some spirit that's watching you all the time, you need to remember that actions speak louder than words.
I think an honest atheistic president would probably serve the best for reasons that Sipid has already touched on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:46 pm
Sir_Cathl_Peabody Do you people not know that politicians will say anything to get elected? I think we've had more than one president who believes there's no god. When your actions tend to give rise to the conclusion that you don't think there's some spirit that's watching you all the time, you need to remember that actions speak louder than words. I think an honest atheistic president would probably serve the best for reasons that Sipid has already touched on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:46 pm
Cathl brings out a valid point to this whole conversation. Actions do speak louder than words, and it seems that the most crooked politicians (DeLay in particular) are also bible-beaters, but you can also have a crooked atheistic politician as well. Perhaps we shouldn't look at this through the lenses of religion, but of ethics. Would it be better to have a utilitarian president, or would a Kantian president be better suited to rule? And in case you're wondering, most Presidents have been Kantian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:55 pm
People continue to vote for corrupt politicians. Corruption won't go away until more people start making more educated votes.
Atheists have more loyalty to the actual law then to some supposed divine rule. From our perspective law seems to work fairly well, while organized religion doesn't work well at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:01 pm
Soleq Cathl brings out a valid point to this whole conversation. Actions do speak louder than words, and it seems that the most crooked politicians (DeLay in particular) are also bible-beaters, but you can also have a crooked atheistic politician as well. Perhaps we shouldn't look at this through the lenses of religion, but of ethics. Would it be better to have a utilitarian president, or would a Kantian president be better suited to rule? And in case you're wondering, most Presidents have been Kantian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:16 pm
"Live not in the hypoethetical future and the "what if" past, but the realistical present."
That describes my day, today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:38 pm
ButterBalls "Live not in the hypoethetical future and the "what if" past, but the realistical present."
That describes my day, today. But what if it didn't describe your day yesterday? Or what if tomorrow someone invents a time machine and modifies your today so you're not thinking what you’re thinking today. The possibilities are mysterious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:08 pm
Captain_Sipid_Peabody ButterBalls "Live not in the hypoethetical future and the "what if" past, but the realistical present."
That describes my day, today. But what if it didn't describe your day yesterday? Or what if tomorrow someone invents a time machine and modifies your today so you're not thinking what you’re thinking today. The possibilities are mysterious.
As a general note: the Iraqi election is coming up and God/Alah/Gods/Buddha/No Gods/High Power/Cells/Etc be with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:18 am
ButterBalls
As a general note: the Iraqi election is coming up and God/Alah/Gods/Buddha/No Gods/High Power/Cells/Etc be with you.What about The Force?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:06 am
In college, my motto was "May the truth tables guide you." Ah, the misery called truth tables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:29 am
Soleq In college, my motto was "May the truth tables guide you." Ah, the misery called truth tables. In my philosophy class we're learning how to construct truth tables. It doesn't seem very hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
