Faith required for POTUS?

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
e: The same thing goes for the flying spaghetti monster, the magical space teapot, and the gnomes at the bottom of my garden.

M: But it really doesn't. One of the greatest piece of evidence for the existence of God is the fact that at all times and all places men will invent him. They don't universally invent the stuff you mentioned.

Mind if I jump in here? This specific idea is very interesting to me and I've been thinking about it recently.

To observe that at all times and all places men have invented some kind of god/creator is not really evidence that there actually is some kind of god/creator. It is only evidence that there is a universal need for a god/creator that man has always attempted to fill. Some of the invented gods/spirits/demons/etc of past cultures are actually not all that far out from the idea of a flying spaghetti monster or a gnome at the bottom of a garden.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with your assumption about the latter remark (i.e., no atheist). However, IMO that position takes a great deal of "faith" as well.

Fern

I believe later in his remarks he states that atheism it's own religion.

There is no credible evidence to suggest there is any higher power whatsoever, so I disagree that it takes "faith" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Hardcore atheism activists might take on some of the characteristics of religious leaders but I still don't think that holds true enough to declare atheism in itself as a religion.

Hardcore atheism is a religion. They practice it more rigourously then most "Christians"

No we don't. Or maybe most of us are not what you consider hardcore atheists.

This is hardcore:

Link

If that's the largest group and it has only 12,000 members world wide they are significantly out numbered by their Nut Job Fund A Mental Case Evangelical brethren in this country and like those Fundies they are whacked.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with your assumption about the latter remark (i.e., no atheist). However, IMO that position takes a great deal of "faith" as well.

Fern

I believe later in his remarks he states that atheism it's own religion.

There is no credible evidence to suggest there is any higher power whatsoever, so I disagree that it takes "faith" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Hardcore atheism activists might take on some of the characteristics of religious leaders but I still don't think that holds true enough to declare atheism in itself as a religion.

Hardcore atheism is a religion. They practice it more rigourously then most "Christians"

No we don't. Or maybe most of us are not what you consider hardcore atheists.

This is hardcore:

Link

lol they have little trinkets and crap for sale just like other religions! Nothing like using your beliefs as a market..

 

[spittledip]

I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

Also, when talking about meaning and experiences like moonie is above and to deny that those things are important to evaluating concepts of existence/being is to live in a dichotomy of sorts. Life is a whole thing. One should use all the resources given to them to consider concepts of existence and being. Logic/reason are just one way to evaluate. However, they are both limited. To come to a conclusion about life based upon only one form of evaluation is not exactly the most honest/holistic way to do so. Life is more than reason, and as such should be evaluated using all of ones facilities.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
e: The same thing goes for the flying spaghetti monster, the magical space teapot, and the gnomes at the bottom of my garden.

M: But it really doesn't. One of the greatest piece of evidence for the existence of God is the fact that at all times and all places men will invent him. They don't universally invent the stuff you mentioned.

Mind if I jump in here? This specific idea is very interesting to me and I've been thinking about it recently.

To observe that at all times and all places men have invented some kind of god/creator is not really evidence that there actually is some kind of god/creator. It is only evidence that there is a universal need for a god/creator that man has always attempted to fill. Some of the invented gods/spirits/demons/etc of past cultures are actually not all that far out from the idea of a flying spaghetti monster or a gnome at the bottom of a garden.

Yes. But it is the fact that there is that need, the plaintive call of the flute for its osier bed, that speaks to a hole in our life, a recognition, a feeling of absence, a fall from grace and a desire to return to some distant and forgotten source that tells of there is a God or state of unity we long for. One has no need of a spaghetti monster, because the soul was never united with one. It is unity and perfection, wholeness and health, piece and love, that we seek and were torn from when we were taught to self hate. One can't want what one has never known. It is what we once were that we seek to reclaim. The lover and the beloved were one.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Huckabee is an idiot, and a threat to this nation.

Care to explain?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

Or the big bang.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

Or the big bang.

The Big Bang is presented as a theory by Scientists where as Genesis is presented as fact based on the beliefs of ancient Sheep Herders.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

Or the big bang.

The Big Bang is presented as a theory by Scientists where as Genesis is presented as fact based on the beliefs of ancient Sheep Herders.

Yet atheists like youself take the big bang as fact and look at Genesis as a theory.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

Or the big bang.

The Big Bang is presented as a theory by Scientists where as Genesis is presented as fact based on the beliefs of ancient Sheep Herders.

Yet atheists like youself take the big bang as fact and look at Genesis as a theory.

Nice try but again as usual you are wrong. I don't take the Big Bang as fact, just a theory and I sure don't think Genesis is a theory, I think it is a fairy tale.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't take the Big Bang as fact, just a theory and I sure don't think Genesis is a theory, I think it is a fairy tale.

Sounds like a personal problem. If I'm wrong, oh well, I still lived a good life. If you are wrong, well....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't take the Big Bang as fact, just a theory and I sure don't think Genesis is a theory, I think it is a fairy tale.

Sounds like a personal problem. If I'm wrong, oh well, I still lived a good life. If you are wrong, well....

I won't be spending eternity with the likes of you and your ilk, sounds like a win for me.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't take the Big Bang as fact, just a theory and I sure don't think Genesis is a theory, I think it is a fairy tale.

Sounds like a personal problem. If I'm wrong, oh well, I still lived a good life. If you are wrong, well....

I won't be spending eternity with the likes of you and your ilk, sounds like a win for me.

Ignorance is bliss!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't take the Big Bang as fact, just a theory and I sure don't think Genesis is a theory, I think it is a fairy tale.

Sounds like a personal problem. If I'm wrong, oh well, I still lived a good life. If you are wrong, well....

I won't be spending eternity with the likes of you and your ilk, sounds like a win for me.

Ignorance is bliss!

How blissful you must be.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't take the Big Bang as fact, just a theory and I sure don't think Genesis is a theory, I think it is a fairy tale.

Sounds like a personal problem. If I'm wrong, oh well, I still lived a good life. If you are wrong, well....

I won't be spending eternity with the likes of you and your ilk, sounds like a win for me.

Ignorance is bliss!

How blissful you must be.

Not nearly as blissful as yourself...

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Romney also said in todays speech...

"Freedom requires religeon."

I kinda thought that freedom we're trying to spread in the middle east is aimed at the secularists in government.

Looks like a conflict to me.

Only conflict is that one religion doesn't belong in the world. Others are moderate enough.

You've defined the problem. This is what evangelicals think of mormons. How do you make this determination? What is the criteria?

Maybe government should stay with government and religeon should stay with religeon.
History has shown mixing them causes too much trouble.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with your assumption about the latter remark (i.e., no atheist). However, IMO that position takes a great deal of "faith" as well.

Fern

There is no credible evidence to suggest there is any higher power whatsoever, so I disagree that it takes "faith" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

There is all kinds of credible evidence to suggest a higher power exists so yours is a faith that no such evidence exists. And from this faith that no such power exists comes your religion. You don't just not believe in God, you disbelieve in Him. You are sure he does not exist if you are an Atheist.

No, you are wrong, there is nothing, not a single shred of evidence that any supernatural force exists, period. I do not actively spend energy denying any feeling, I don't actively proselytize against anyone. It doesn't take faith to not believe in Santa Claus.

I can sometimes appreciate the clever word games you attempt to play, but you are no Anton Chiguhr, I'm not a gas station attendant, and no coin flip will be taking place.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

Or the big bang.

The Big Bang is presented as a theory by Scientists where as Genesis is presented as fact based on the beliefs of ancient Sheep Herders.

Yet atheists like youself take the big bang as fact and look at Genesis as a theory.

There are religious physicists who admit the big bang theory is the best explanation currently available on the creation of the universe, and who recognize Genesis for what it is, a morality tale. Being religious doesn't mean you have to remain ignorant and in active rebellion against reality. And who's to say god didn't cause the big bang, if that's what you want to believe? But just denying the big bang and claiming a book written a few thousand years ago holds evidence comparable to current knowledge about the creation of the universe...well that's willfully ignorant.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Huckabee is an idiot, and a threat to this nation.

Care to explain?

Sure.

First he is for large-scale expansion of the military, and military spending. America was founded with staunch opposition to ANY standing army. As it is we spend so much more on military than any other nation it's mind-boggling.

Second he is fully behind the idea of a 'war on terror'. This is a continuation of the absolute lunacy we have barely endured for the last 6 years already. There can be no such thing as a war on an idea...such a thing cannot be won in any way, and can only weaken and harm a country.

Third he supports covenant marriages, a dangerous practice with no place in civil society. This ties in strongly he to absurd level of zealotry.

Fourth he is against any form of gay union. This means he is a bigot, and seeks to marginalize a portion of the people he would be representing as President. He would actively violate their basic human, and civil rights based on nothing more than his closed-minded religious prejudism. This basically ties into his absurd level of zealotry.

Fifth, he seeks absolute, total, and immediate over-turning of Roe v. Wade. This is troubling for a number of reasons. The executive doesn't get to overturn court cases. Period. This tells me he has no respect for checks and balances. Second, it tells me he has no respect for women's rights, specifically reproductive rights. Thirdly it's only because of his absurd level of zealotry, which can NEVER be the basis of law or policy.

Sixth, he says he is opposed to 'embryonic' stem-cell research but has so far opposed any form of this research, even that not utilizing embryonic cells. This tells me he would hamper our medical advances, research, etc based only on his absurd level of zealotry.

Finally, it mostly comes down to him being what is in my view, an extraordinary zealot. I have no issue with someone being religious...even extremely religious. I do care when a Presidential candidate openly states that he will not separate his religion from his political career and decisions...that means he will be a President who will make biased decisions with absolutely no regard for those that do not share his particular faith. In my opinion that is inexcusable. If you are in government and you find your faith at odds with your DUTY as a representative of the people (all people, including those of opposing religious viewpoints) then your options are to act outside of your faith, or to step down. You DO NOT have the option of acting first for your faith and imposing that religion upon those you are paid to serve.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
**cut**

I'm sorry Moonbeam but your reasoning is flawed. The problem with your light bulb analogy is that with the light bulb both states (on and off) are equally probable. The existance of a universe creating sky beardo is not as probable as there not being one, because he is a far far more complex entity then is required for non existence.

Secondly you claim that the only reason people can't see the existence of god is that they lack the tools to do so. That's very convenient for your point of view, but unfortunately its totally unpersuasive. While I might not be able to see germs with my naked eye, I can borrow the scientists equipment and make my own judgement based upon objective observation. The same is not true for you. (if you are going to claim that it is I would very much like to know what transferrable tools these are that do not presuppose the existence of a higher power)

As for the flying spaghetti monster, the magic teapot, etc... yes they DO invent them. I find very little difference between a pasta bowl cooking up the universe and a turtle throwing it up, or Zeus throwing lightning bolts some guy's making on a forge next to him. What is particularly interesting however is that as mankind's understanding of the world around him increases, god invariably retreats. He always fills in the gaps in our understanding, fleeing from the advances of science. Even if everything I just said is wrong, the fact that disparate cultures all have creation myths and gods in them is in no way evidence for those gods actually existing. You are attempting to use the logical fallacy 'argumentum ad populum' by saying because lots of cultures have done something that it is evidence it must be right/true. The amount of people that do it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on that.

Anyways, I think we had this discussion a long time ago and I don't have any great desire to have it again. (all that crap I just wrote notwithstanding) Feel free to reply and all, but I would much rather just agree to disagree as I feel like we are coming from two points that will never agree because we don't even agree on the premise of the argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

Or the big bang.

The Big Bang is presented as a theory by Scientists where as Genesis is presented as fact based on the beliefs of ancient Sheep Herders.

Yet atheists like youself take the big bang as fact and look at Genesis as a theory.

There are religious physicists who admit the big bang theory is the best explanation currently available on the creation of the universe, and who recognize Genesis for what it is, a morality tale. Being religious doesn't mean you have to remain ignorant and in active rebellion against reality. And who's to say god didn't cause the big bang, if that's what you want to believe? But just denying the big bang and claiming a book written a few thousand years ago holds evidence comparable to current knowledge about the creation of the universe...well that's willfully ignorant.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but in addition, are there not actually two contradictory versions of Genesis creation in the Bible where the order in which things were created differ. Even the Bible, it seems, in internally inconsistent, and the story was, also, I believe, lifted from earlier religions.

I much prefer the notion that the universe is supported on the back of a turtle because it allows a simple explanation as to what supports the turtle, namely, that it's turtles all the way down.

 

[manowar821]

I remember saying a couple months ago that Romney is "just another nut-job fundamentalist". I also remember that more than a couple people here said I was being unfair and one or two said something to the effect of "you're an anti-god prick blah blah blah".

How unfair is it now?

Faith should be kept out of anything that is a system that people rely on. Government, education, law. Faith will make a mess of these things.

EDIT: Calling atheism a religion is idiotic at best. A = no Theism = god/higher power(faith/religion) Atheism literally means "A lack of religion" "A lack of faith" "A lack of a belief in any kind of higher power whatsoever".

It does not mean "faith that there is no higher power". Get over yourself, please.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with your assumption about the latter remark (i.e., no atheist). However, IMO that position takes a great deal of "faith" as well.

Fern

There is no credible evidence to suggest there is any higher power whatsoever, so I disagree that it takes "faith" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

There is all kinds of credible evidence to suggest a higher power exists so yours is a faith that no such evidence exists. And from this faith that no such power exists comes your religion. You don't just not believe in God, you disbelieve in Him. You are sure he does not exist if you are an Atheist.

No, you are wrong, there is nothing, not a single shred of evidence that any supernatural force exists, period. I do not actively spend energy denying any feeling, I don't actively proselytize against anyone. It doesn't take faith to not believe in Santa Claus.

I can sometimes appreciate the clever word games you attempt to play, but you are no Anton Chiguhr, I'm not a gas station attendant, and no coin flip will be taking place.

Ah the old, 'you have the more convincing argument but I'm still right' a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, argument. OK, fine, you put your faith in your non-belief. There can be no shred of evidence for you.

 

[Moonbeam]

e: I'm sorry Moonbeam but your reasoning is flawed. The problem with your light bulb analogy is that with the light bulb both states (on and off) are equally probable. The existance of a universe creating sky beardo is not as probable as there not being one, because he is a far far more complex entity then is required for non existence.

M: Is the universe a far more complex entity than can arise out of non-existence? And does the universe not exist within the complexity of your own brain? And I've told you before that the god you don't believe in is not the God that exists. God is God realization, what man can become when the self is transcended and there is only Love. You won't find God in the sky. He is known only through the heart.

e: Secondly you claim that the only reason people can't see the existence of god is that they lack the tools to do so. That's very convenient for your point of view, but unfortunately its totally unpersuasive.

M: It is not convenient at all because the truth of that fact and your inability, unwillingness to accept it, is what makes you blind. It's sort of a tragedy really. But there is some justice here, however, because the truth can't be kept from those who want it and can't be given to those who do not.

e: While I might not be able to see germs with my naked eye, I can borrow the scientists equipment and make my own judgement based upon objective observation. The same is not true for you. (if you are going to claim that it is I would very much like to know what transferrable tools these are that do not presuppose the existence of a higher power)

M: I told you, you just have to die to your ego. You just need intense dissatisfaction or enormous curiosity to see you through.

e: As for the flying spaghetti monster, the magic teapot, etc... yes they DO invent them. I find very little difference between a pasta bowl cooking up the universe and a turtle throwing it up, or Zeus throwing lightning bolts some guy's making on a forge next to him. What is particularly interesting however is that as mankind's understanding of the world around him increases, god invariably retreats. He always fills in the gaps in our understanding, fleeing from the advances of science.

M: Yes, religion is evolving, but so many are stuck in the past with their absolute certainty in their text. They are believers, not people of faith.

e: Even if everything I just said is wrong, the fact that disparate cultures all have creation myths and gods in them is in no way evidence for those gods actually existing.

M: They are all the adumbration of God, the best people can do to understand and explain the sudden experience of the cosmic event that occurs to the mind that achieves a moment of unity and the loss of self.

e: You are attempting to use the logical fallacy 'argumentum ad populum' by saying because lots of cultures have done something that it is evidence it must be right/true.

M: I am not saying anything is right or true, only that the creation of all these myths has the same source, the contact that will continue to happen as long as man exists, with his original and true nature.

e: The amount of people that do it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on that.

M: The number is rather small. There are many believers but not so many who know.

e: Anyways, I think we had this discussion a long time ago and I don't have any great desire to have it again. (all that crap I just wrote notwithstanding) Feel free to reply and all, but I would much rather just agree to disagree as I feel like we are coming from two points that will never agree because we don't even agree on the premise of the argument.

M: Not a problem for me. There is nothing a person in prison and doesn't know that he is can do if he doesn't want to see that prison. I have only tried to show you that the fact that you do not want to have this discussion arises out of hidden motivation. There are reasons you believe what you do and don't want to hear me. Nothing will happen for you without countenancing that possibility. God is love and love was destroyed by enormous pain. To love again is to die in that pain, to relive your childhood again and recover what was lost. To find God is to walk through hell.