Would You Elect An Atheist?

[It's Damn Real!]

If you speak in the general form, that is exactly the case... but there are some situations when one's spiritual basis dictating a political decision could be considered for the better. Purely from an example, let's say a Buddhist becomes the leader of a powerful country and decides to lean towards solving peace rather than make war to make the world a safer place. Instead of going for the violent solution, why not take the politically-correct way and resolve issues via communications?

There are certain morals and values that is accepted by all religions, thus making it common knowledge and accepted by all... in doing so, having religion being a major factor in these areas can help. But I do see your point as these circumstances are quite rare to find. It's best to separate religion from politics and completely removing it from being a legitimate reason to place a vote for a certain candidate.

Yes, and that's all entirely subjective again, not to mention stemmed from a very volatile thing in religion, as at it's fundamental core, despite it's often peaceful overtones, it is often violent from birth. Those who follow religion — namely the major three monotheistic religions — to their most literal extents, do take it's word as infallible, and do advocate very evil things, indeed. How else are we to explain the deplorable genital mutilation millions of children are subjected to before they are even old enough to object or voice a personal opinion on the matter? How else are we to explain the irresponsible practices of shunning homosexuality in modern social structures?

Again, this all comes back to the moral objectivity of the candidate, which I contest precedes his religion and doesn't stem from it at all. His religion is more often than not an obstacle in the way of moral objectivity, and not a aid to it.

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." [Sir Thomas Paine]

 

[Xemmy]

You have the moxie to call me out on not knowing something at the end of your post here, but you start off with this shit?

Hmm...laziness (or, rather lassitude)...who thought that caused the decline of the Roman Empire? Oh, yeah, that's right, Edward Gibbon. You've talked out of your ass throughout the majority of this thread here, so I don't expect you to know who he is, but any person with an inkling of historical knowledge of this time would be able to tell you who he is.

Congratz. You've managed to tell me that the downfall of an empire caused the Dark Ages, but you've yet to explain what happened during the Dark Ages. Yes we all know how the damn dark ages STARTED. Are you just that determined to prove that religion has never done any harm. Witch burnings took place, persecution of Jews as Christ killers. Is any of this ringing a damn bell?

Also, where do you get this idea that people were killed left and right in the name of religion during the transition from the Roman Empire into medieval times? Seriously, man, get your fucking facts straight before you bullshit like this again: historians have long thought that the advent of Christianity caused those within the Roman Empire to care less about their temporal life and care more about their afterlife. This shift in concerns, in turn, allowed barbarians to sack the Roman Empire.

Aparently I'm using the wrong definition of Dark Ages. Dark Ages has become a term to represent alot more of the middle ages than the original term. I owe an apology for that one. However, yes. People were being killed left and right in the name of God. It happens every fucking day if I haven't already explained. And you've simply ignored that VERY FUCKING TRUE POINT.

Judging by your posts in this thread, I seriously doubt that you read. Rather, you just tune into Real Time with Bill Maher and take what he says as gospel. And, yes, YOUR educational situation is the same as everyone else's .

Well, good job. Everything but the last sentence was just a one big insult. Good job showing how you argue. No my educational situation is not the same for all, but it is for a good majority in the southern U.S.

What dozen other examples? Seriously, man, stop talking out of your ass.

Wow, after "Religion does NOTHING To detriment science..." I thought you were the one talking out your ass. You wanted a single example, and I gave you the two off the top of my head. Would you like a fucking list? Or are you still right about religion just never ever doing anything against science.

Stem cell research is growing by leaps and bounds in Europe, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that religion is preventing it from being performed. Also, the church's initial rejection of the Copernican view of the universe had everything to do with their unyielding adherence to the Aristotelian view of the universe and nothing to do with what the Bible said. Paradigm shifts in science are always controversial, so religion only indirectly had something to do with that affair, buddy.

1. Congratz to Europe. That doesn't exuse the Religious from stopping it here in good ol' God Country. Just because they stop it in one place, but allow it in another doesn't refute my argument.
2. He was threatened with death. Why? Because the Catholic Church has those views. Why? Because it had become part of their religion. I don't give a shit about what the bible said on the subject. Religious people interpret their books how they want to. They were the "holy" ones in power. In their eyes the earth was flat because that's how they interperted the bible. It DIRECTLY effected that affair. Buddy.

If your error-laden research and shit reasoning is the result of your atheism, then I don't give a shit what religion does to anyone's mindset; the outcome can only be better than your mindset.

At least I've pointed out my margin of error. You seem to think your "research"(which you appear to be pulling out of your ass) is iffallible.

So? As is your wont, you're taking a few examples, looking at what they have in common, and then generalizing these commonalities to all religious denominations. Your initial argument was that religion hinders human progress, and you have been a resounding failure so far in arguing that point.

WHY ELSE WOULD PEOPLE DO THAT. Because they think Stem Cell Goo is Icky? Oh, and here's another one. Islam is roughly 20% of the human population. They produce less than 1% of all scientific papers. The people in Nevada live in the middle of the desert....before you go using that as an exuse. Are they directly harming science. No. Are they holding it back. Yes.

Lulz...did you plagiarize this from atheists.org? Also, one of Marx's predecessors, the father of critical philosophy, Immanuel Kant, argued persuasively that faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive. Even if Marx did make these comments about religion, I'm buying what Kant rather than what Marx says.

Lulz. Wikipedia on Sociology of Religion. Not the most reliable source, but looking at the page, it appears to be where you got your information, as it's written below mine.
And I don't give a shit about who you buy. You said that I couldn't find one that had that stand point on religion. I found one just as famous as yours. Get over it.

Did you just say that you didn't AND did say that all priests molest their young congregants? How can this be? Your posts make the arguments of religious extremists look comparatively well-reasoned.

HOLY SHIT BATMAN! THIS DOES NOTHING TO MY ARGUMENT. TALK ABOUT WELL-REASONED! Does this mean I can plant my flag and claim victory?

I've probably pissed you off for outing you as an ill-informed and uneducated atheist who thinks that reading atheism blogs and watching youtube videos makes him an expert on religion and violent death, but I don't see how I've pissed anyone else off.

No, you've just pissed me off for creating this fiction land in Atheism, and for assuming that you have anymore expertise than me when you've just shown you don't. You've made me happy because you're whole argument has been more insult than substance, making it a shitload more easy to disect. Hell, I've had to respond to nearly half of this with returning insults because you have no argument, just claims of "HE STUPID!". You've made me happy because you're proving the statistics I posted in the opening.

You've said that religion is an impediment to the advancement of humanity and that it has done more bad than good. I have shown that your arguments are, at best, poorly-reasoned and and without any substance.

No you haven't. I'd say more, but this is really one of those that you just go, "Nuh-Uh!" to Since you really can't be proven wrong or right.

That website's heading is listed as "Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century," not "A List of All Religious War Casualties." Did you just assume that I wouldn't open up the link and see that you were citing a website that lists all war casualties instead of just those committed in the name of religion?

Well you better have a good exuse for this one. Like not having a mouse. Or Not having hands. SCROLL DOWN TO THE PART THAT SUBTEXTS RELIGIOUS CONFLICT!!!! Jesus you people jump up and down at the first sign of false victory.

If anything, you have blemished the reputation of atheism in this thread. You know jackshit about history besides what Religulous taught you. Hopefully, atheism's most esteemed advocates aren't as stupid as you are.

I'd say you blemished the Religious, but clearly you haven't considering it is a giant blemish on humanity.

If anything you've shown that you're better at insult than argument. Save actual insults for the end of your post, that way people can tell them apart, and remember to brush your teeth. There's been alot of bullshit spewing from your mouth. Also, you keep trying to bring up that I'm a fan of Bill Maher as if it's an argument. It's not. People wonder what I have against religion. It's people like you that make me so damned hateful of religion. Whether it being denying fact, or distorting someones position just because you think you can get away with it. If you post entire sections riddled with insult again, I'm just going to respond to them at the bottom so it may look weird.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

If you speak in the general form, that is exactly the case... but there are some situations when one's spiritual basis dictating a political decision could be considered for the better. Purely from an example, let's say a Buddhist becomes the leader of a powerful country and decides to lean towards solving peace rather than make war to make the world a safer place. Instead of going for the violent solution, why not take the politically-correct way and resolve issues via communications?

There are certain morals and values that is accepted by all religions, thus making it common knowledge and accepted by all... in doing so, having religion being a major factor in these areas can help. But I do see your point as these circumstances are quite rare to find. It's best to separate religion from politics and completely removing it from being a legitimate reason to place a vote for a certain candidate.

While I totally agree in this sense, I don't think positions like wanting peace are inherently a religious or even spiritual stance, as an atheist could have these same exact positions. Whereas, for something like forced prayer in schools, or a flat-out ban on homosexual physical relations between to consensual adults would probably be an inherent religious stance, and they never happen "for the better."

Now, on the other side, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I'd vote for an atheist if the guy is sitting up there saying he's going to try to dominate the world, whereas the Christian elect is gunning (lol) for peace.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Congratz. You've managed to tell me that the downfall of an empire caused the Dark Ages, but you've yet to explain what happened during the Dark Ages.

I don't have to explain what happened during medieval times. You claimed that it's a boon to your argument that religion impedes the progress of humanity, and I've shown you why this isn't the case. You can't even properly name the events that occurred during this time, so why I don't I do that for you?

The Medieval Inquisition and the Crusades account for the most deaths due to religion from roughly the 5th century CE to the 15th century CE (i.e., the time span referred to by people as the Middle Ages/Medieval Age/Dark Ages). Taken together, liberal death tolls for these events are estimated at about 2.5 million people. That's 16 TIMES less than the conservative death toll estimate for World War II. Also, let's not forget that World War II took place during a six-year time span. The Dark Ages span roughly a millennium. Something tells me that WAY more personal, violent deaths took place during this period than church-sponsored murders.

Yes we all know how the damn dark ages STARTED. Are you just that determined to prove that religion has never done any harm.

No, I'm not. I'm not even religious. My argument is that it's done more good for humanity than bad. You've yet to prove me wrong on this point.

Witch burnings took place, persecution of Jews as Christ killers. Is any of this ringing a damn bell?

And all of the murders that have been committed in the name of religion pale in comparison to what's been done in the name of nationalism, communism, and independence, or what's been done simply for greed.

However, yes. People were being killed left and right in the name of God. It happens every fucking day if I haven't already explained. And you've simply ignored that VERY FUCKING TRUE POINT.

I've never ignored this point since it's not even pertinent to the topic at hand. You've claimed two things:

1) Religion is a hindrance to humanity.

2) Religion is a leading cause of non-natural, -natural disaster, and -epidemic death.

So far, you've been owned on both points.

Well, good job. Everything but the last sentence was just a one big insult. Good job showing how you argue. No my educational situation is not the same for all, but it is for a good majority in the southern U.S.

I honestly only insulted you because you claimed to have given me a history lesson in your last post. I obviously know a fuck load more than you do about history, so why even pretend to have schooled me?

Wow, after "Religion does NOTHING To detriment science..." I thought you were the one talking out your ass. You wanted a single example, and I gave you the two off the top of my head. Would you like a fucking list? Or are you still right about religion just never ever doing anything against science.

This is about religion ******ing the growth of science. You've probably given religion too much credit here; if science were a ten ton wrecking ball, then religion would just be an old piece of drywall.

Religion can't stop the progress of science, and, should it be eliminated, science would not be any better for it.

1. Congratz to Europe. That doesn't exuse the Religious from stopping it here in good ol' God Country. Just because they stop it in one place, but allow it in another doesn't refute my argument.

What, that it's not taking place in America? It is, idiot. It's just not receiving any kind of public subsidy. And, it does at least partially refute your argument: stem cell research is receiving public subsidization in parts of the world where religion is still significant.

2. He was threatened with death. Why? Because the Catholic Church has those views. Why? Because it had become part of their religion. I don't give a shit about what the bible said on the subject. Religious people interpret their books how they want to. They were the "holy" ones in power. In their eyes the earth was flat because that's how they interperted the bible. It DIRECTLY effected that affair. Buddy.

Here's the wikipedia article for the Galileo Affiar: Link

I'd like to draw your attention to one paragraph under the heading "The Bible Argument":

The Galileo Affair is commonly mistaken for a clash between Religion and Science in modern culture. While the Roman Catholic Church was involved in the affair, the clash was between Copernican science and Aristotelian science. Since the Aristotelian view had been the prevailing scientific understanding for over 1,000 years, the Catholic Church had accepted it as truth.

Also, it had nothing to do with thinking that Earth was flat; it was a debate over whether the universe was geocentric or heliocentric.

Owning you is quite easy.

At least I've pointed out my margin of error. You seem to think your "research"(which you appear to be pulling out of your ass) is iffallible.

Nah, I'm actually recalling facts from very reputable sources. I'll gladly list them if your idiocy continues. I'm pretty sure you'll then tell me that these books either don't exist or that they're wrong.

WHY ELSE WOULD PEOPLE DO THAT. Because they think Stem Cell Goo is Icky? Oh, and here's another one. Islam is roughly 20% of the human population. They produce less than 1% of all scientific papers. The people in Nevada live in the middle of the desert....before you go using that as an exuse. Are they directly harming science. No. Are they holding it back. Yes.

This argument would work if it wasn't for the fact that funding for scientific research is virtually non-existent in most Islamic countries. Why do you assume that because 20% of the world's population is averse to science that that must mean they are holding it back? Would their conversion to atheism all of a sudden open up new sources of research funding? Doubtful.

Lulz. Wikipedia on Sociology of Religion. Not the most reliable source, but looking at the page, it appears to be where you got your information, as it's written below mine.

This is the first time I've seen this page, and, without my reference to it, I seriously doubt you would've known what the sociology of religion even was. But, you are right: this lends credence to my initial claim that Marx thought of religion as a capitalist tool, not as a danger in and of itself.

And I don't give a shit about who you buy. You said that I couldn't find one that had that stand point on religion. I found one just as famous as yours. Get over it.

What? I said any sociologist of religion would tell you that you're flat out wrong in your claim that religion has done more harm than good for humanity. I still stand by this claim, and you've done absolutely nothing to prove me wrong.

HOLY SHIT BATMAN! THIS DOES NOTHING TO MY ARGUMENT. TALK ABOUT WELL-REASONED! Does this mean I can plant my flag and claim victory?

Yeah, it does hurt your argument. It shows that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. How can priests both molest and not molest their young congregants? It was one of many shit examples that you've given for why religion has done more bad than good. Of course, as with every example you've given, it's grossly exaggerated and cited from your ass.

No, you've just pissed me off for creating this fiction land in Atheism, and for assuming that you have anymore expertise than me when you've just shown you don't. You've made me happy because you're whole argument has been more insult than substance, making it a shitload more easy to disect. Hell, I've had to respond to nearly half of this with returning insults because you have no argument, just claims of "HE STUPID!". You've made me happy because you're proving the statistics I posted in the opening.

What statistics have I proven?! I haven't associated atheism with immorality, crime, or other negative demographics (how the fuck can a demographic be negative by the way?). I did call them lazy and selfish in comparison to religious individuals, and you've definitely proven the lazy part with your arguments and your research.

No you haven't. I'd say more, but this is really one of those that you just go, "Nuh-Uh!" to Since you really can't be proven wrong or right.

Actually, I have. Every example you've given so far I've shown to be either grossly exaggerated or wholly fabricated. Also, a smarter debater would check my factual evidence, but I seriously doubt you have the capability to do so.

Well you better have a good exuse for this one. Like not having a mouse. Or Not having hands. SCROLL DOWN TO THE PART THAT SUBTEXTS RELIGIOUS CONFLICT!!!! Jesus you people jump up and down at the first sign of false victory.

I tallied up all the religious conflict death toll numbers. The liberal estimates brings me to a total of 105,884,000 deaths. That's nowhere near 800,000,000 deaths.

So, besides not being able properly argue, you can't add either.

Furthermore, I'd like to draw you to what the compiler of these statistics has said in his/her FAQs (Link):

Q: Is religion responsible for more more violent deaths than any other cause?

A: No, of course not -- unless you define religion so broadly as to be meaningless. Just take the four deadliest events of the 20th Century -- Two World Wars, Red China and the Soviet Union -- no religious motivation there, unless you consider every belief system to be a religion.

Damn, man, even the maker of your precious website says you're fighting a lost cause.

I'd say you blemished the Religious, but clearly you haven't considering it is a giant blemish on humanity.

If anything you've shown that you're better at insult than argument. Save actual insults for the end of your post, that way people can tell them apart, and remember to brush your teeth. There's been alot of bullshit spewing from your mouth. Also, you keep trying to bring up that I'm a fan of Bill Maher as if it's an argument. It's not. People wonder what I have against religion. It's people like you that make me so damned hateful of religion. Whether it being denying fact, or distorting someones position just because you think you can get away with it. If you post entire sections riddled with insult again, I'm just going to respond to them at the bottom so it may look weird.

Respond to my posts however you so choose. If you keep on coming in here with bullshit, then I'll call it as such and out you for the moron that you are. And, as I've said before, I'm not even religious. I do enjoy owning dumbasses like yourself, though.

 

[The Crock]

Why not? Ever heard of separation of church and state? I don't care if a politician is religious or not, you don't have to believe in God to have a great set of morals and to be a good politician. I don't see why religion must be brought into everything, I understand that it is a huge part of life for some people but it shouldn't be a part of politics. Religion would only skew a politician's views and make him more biased. Trust me, politicians shouldn't be ANY MORE biased than they already are.

 

[Xemmy]

I don't have to explain what happened during medieval times. You claimed that it's a boon to your argument that religion impedes the progress of humanity, and I've shown you why this isn't the case. You can't even properly name the events that occurred during this time, so why I don't I do that for you?

The Medieval Inquisition and the Crusades account for the most deaths due to religion from roughly the 5th century CE to the 15th century CE (i.e., the time span referred to by people as the Middle Ages/Medieval Age/Dark Ages). Taken together, liberal death tolls for these events are estimated at about 2.5 million people. That's 16 TIMES less than the conservative death toll estimate for World War II. Also, let's not forget that World War II took place during a six-year time span. The Dark Ages span roughly a millennium. Something tells me that WAY more personal, violent deaths took place during this period than church-sponsored murders.

I'm getting the implication that you think I believe Religion is the root of all evil or something. Yes, there are more deaths, for other reasons. Does that change the fact that religion has done serious harm. What real good did religion do at this time?

No, I'm not. I'm not even religious. My argument is that it's done more good for humanity than bad. You've yet to prove me wrong on this point.

Good for you. Really. The burden of proof is on you at this point. I've presented evidence of religious atrocity. You've yet to explain what great good religion has done to outweigh this.

And all of the murders that have been committed in the name of religion pale in comparison to what's been done in the name of nationalism, communism, and independence, or what's been done simply for greed.

You're right. But that doesn't change the ball game. It's still a problem, one that causes more harm than good.

I've never ignored this point since it's not even pertinent to the topic at hand. You've claimed two things:

1) Religion is a hindrance to humanity.

2) Religion is a leading cause of non-natural, -natural disaster, and -epidemic death.

So far, you've been owned on both points.

1) Yes, and you've failed to explain how this is wrong.
2) It's certainly up their on the list.

I honestly only insulted you because you claimed to have given me a history lesson in your last post. I obviously know a fuck load more than you do about history, so why even pretend to have schooled me?

A little arrogance and suddenly I'm the most ignorant person on planet giving atheists a bad name? Look, yes you've got me beat on the specifics of middle ages, hell you may damn well know more history than I do. That still doesn't explain away my point. Religion has done more bad than good.

This is about religion ******ing the growth of science. You've probably given religion too much credit here; if science were a ten ton wrecking ball, then religion would just be an old piece of drywall.

Probably. Probably. Did my bit on Islam holding back of 5th of the world's population not account for a little more than drywall?

Religion can't stop the progress of science, and, should it be eliminated, science would not be any better for it.

Yes it would. There are many Christians here in southern U.S. that actually see it as EVIL. When you've got a ton people with that mind set, they do things to hinder it. Like, voting certain things out textbooks. Raising their children to believe evidence is evil if it contridicts their holy book. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, it really does happen.

What, that it's not taking place in America? It is, idiot. It's just not receiving any kind of public subsidy. And, it does at least partially refute your argument: stem cell research is receiving public subsidization in parts of the world where religion is still significant.

But not AS significant. Religion is slowing down portions of the population, sure Europe is fine. America isn't, and the Middle East Isn't. Can we not agree on that?

Here's the wikipedia article for the Galileo Affiar: Link

I'd like to draw your attention to one paragraph under the heading "The Bible Argument":



Also, it had nothing to do with thinking that Earth was flat; it was a debate over whether the universe was geocentric or heliocentric.

Owning you is quite easy.

As if, it were. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing still.
I submit on this paticular example. Still doesn't hurt my other points.

Nah, I'm actually recalling facts from very reputable sources. I'll gladly list them if your idiocy continues. I'm pretty sure you'll then tell me that these books either don't exist or that they're wrong.

You mean the idiotic idea that religion has killed a shit load of people?

This argument would work if it wasn't for the fact that funding for scientific research is virtually non-existent in most Islamic countries. Why do you assume that because 20% of the world's population is averse to science that that must mean they are holding it back? Would their conversion to atheism all of a sudden open up new sources of research funding? Doubtful.

I wonder why funding doesn't exist in Islamic counties? It's not like they don't have rich people. Especially the Saudi's. Considering a sudden conversion of an entire religion has never happened, I can't really say no. I imagine if it did progressively over hundreds of years then, YES, it likely would. Hell it doesn't even have to atheism. They just have to stop taking the Qu'ran so literally, and their religion so seriously.

This is the first time I've seen this page, and, without my reference to it, I seriously doubt you would've known what the sociology of religion even was. But, you are right: this lends credence to my initial claim that Marx thought of religion as a capitalist tool, not as a danger in and of itself.

Well, I've never had the subject brought up before. I'm sure EVERYONE talks about it all time where you live. Either way it's not hard. Sociology is the study of society, and religion is religion. It's not hard to put two and two together. Ok, so a capitalist tool, not a danger. But it was still something that he regarded negatively was it not?

What? I said any sociologist of religion would tell you that you're flat out wrong in your claim that religion has done more harm than good for humanity. I still stand by this claim, and you've done absolutely nothing to prove me wrong.

Yes, that's all you've given me. A claim. You've done your damnedest to water down my arguments, with some success, but you've yet to tell me what amazing good religion has done to out do all the negative shit that's been done in it's name.

Yeah, it does hurt your argument. It shows that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. How can priests both molest and not molest their young congregants? It was one of many shit examples that you've given for why religion has done more bad than good. Of course, as with every example you've given, it's grossly exaggerated and cited from your ass.

It shows that you'll do anything to distort a damn position. It's on the damn record book, that preists have been molesting childeren. That's well known. It's been in the news. I've yet to claim all preists molest children, and assuming that I mean ALL preists is at best willful ignorance, and at worst conniving.

What statistics have I proven?! I haven't associated atheism with immorality, crime, or other negative demographics (how the fuck can a demographic be negative by the way?). I did call them lazy and selfish in comparison to religious individuals, and you've definitely proven the lazy part with your arguments and your research.

No, just the overall bit about atheists being the most looked down upon minority. This started when I responded to your claim that most public atheist are just all about proving that people with other beliefs are wrong.
Then you go on to say that atheists are lazy and selfish. Not quite branded with the statstics, but generally negative, unwarrented, and more importantly unproven. It's one thing to insult me, but I'm not saying everybody that believes whatever the hell you believe are holyier than thou, arrogant, or any other negative insult. You weren't insulting me when you said those things. You said atheists were. Not me.

Actually, I have. Every example you've given so far I've shown to be either grossly exaggerated or wholly fabricated. Also, a smarter debater would check my factual evidence, but I seriously doubt you have the capability to do so.

Yes, and you've presented.....what again? The works of one sociologist, saying that his book said that religion's benefits outweighed the bad.

I tallied up all the religious conflict death toll numbers. The liberal estimates brings me to a total of 105,884,000 deaths. That's nowhere near 800,000,000 deaths.

So, besides not being able properly argue, you can't add either.

Yes, so where did you pull that number from? Your ass?
And even if I was, so sorely mistaken, and hit a the wrong button on the caculator, where does that leave us.

STILL 100,000,000 DEAD!!! What has religion done, that was so great, that it was worth killing every single person on that list?! And that's just from war. We haven't added ignorance that could've been avoided, we haven't added the witch trials, and we haven't added human sacrifice.

Respond to my posts however you so choose. If you keep on coming in here with bullshit, then I'll call it as such and out you for the moron that you are. And, as I've said before, I'm not even religious. I do enjoy owning dumbasses like yourself, though.

You've owned nothing. Sure you did some damage(as If I've done absolutely none), but you've presented no evidence to the actually contrary. Why is religion more good than bad? That's virtually the only way you're going to "own" me. I'll shut up, and never comeback to cigar lounge if you can decievely proove that religion has done more good than harm.

 

[Hazardous]

Since Tdigs and Xemnas have their little battle going on (would love to get both of you over to my "Religion vs Science" thread..) I would like to point out that I have come across just as many people saying "Accept Jesus or you're going to hell" and stuff of that sort as I have people saying "religion is for cowards. You are wrong to have it". I've dated many christian chicks. the damn Catholic school girl uniforms do me in every time.. And I've had to sit there and have their parents grill me on how I HAVE to be a christian, and HAVE to share their faith. When I walk out of the liquor store, there is a big group handing out fliers to their church, saying I'm going to go to hell if I don't come to their church and repent for my sins. Now how is this any different then someone of no religion saying that it's fake and wrong to follow? It's not. At all. Both sides are extremely pushy, and rather annoying.

Well a politician using things like "I'm blessed by god" or "I will run this __ the way god intends me to" is crap. That's using a cheap pop to get votes. Because if I'm running a campaign, and I say "I don't believe in any god, or any religion, but I'm going to do whats best for the people" I'm going to LOSE votes, based off the first part of that. This is where the conflict comes into play. Faith should not come into play when deciding world leaders. AT ALL.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Yea, doesnt matter. If he has the best ideas and the best plans for this country, he should get the job. How he spends his afterlife is his buisness, and nothing to do with him being fit to run the country.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I would vote for him for his/her policies if they coincided with mine. I don't think voting for someone based on the person's faith (or lack thereof in this case) is relevant. However I'd like to point out that if you take god out of country it would alienate those who practice thus leaving 98% of the vote.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Anyone that is for separation of church and state instead of combining the two would be candidate to vote for. Of course their policies would have to be a factor as well. It really doesn't matter what religion or little religion someone has as long as they are the right person for the job. This country concentrates too heavily on the religion of a political candidate. I think we are more than likely to see an Atheist in office then someone of the Muslim faith. It really shouldn't matter though. JFK was given a hard time about being Roman Catholic and Obama received criticism for having a crazy Christian pastor, and now being the "Antichrist" or even don't say it... a Muslim! Who gives a damn what someone believes as long as they allow people to practice or not practice religion freely.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Why would i not vote for an atheist? How does the person's religious views really impact the important policies that are all part and parcel of being a politician? Would being an atheist automatically mean that they don't know how to conduct foreign policy or economics or the justice system? No, of course not.

This is like asking, 'would you vote for a heavy metal fan?' and saying 'no because they like music full of shouting and they wear black all the time and are usually fat and sweaty and covered in demonic tattoos.'

Yeah? But they still might have amazing ideas on how to run the country, but your bizarre prejudices could result in a fully blown Christian ****** running the country instead.

 

[LSN80]

It all depends really.

Just as I wouldnt want a Christian, Catholic, or Muslim to push their beliefs as part of their platform, I wouldnt want an athiests lack of beliefs to be pushed as ANY part of their platform.

Religion has no place in politics, relatively speaking. While I think we've grossly misrepresented what "seperation of church and state" means, it shouldnt be the forefront of any campaign. My hope is that I would never know what they truly believe, or dont believe in, therefor allowing for electing without bias.

What it truly boils down to is, if their practices and political stances coincide with mine, Id vote for them. If they didn't, I wouldnt. Its that simple.