Atheism explained

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by mike g35, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. Trew2Life

    Trew2Life #intheflesh

    An openly atheist POTUS would be just as significant to our national I.D. as the first African American, first woman, first 'fill in the blank' president. It would mean we have made tremendous strides towards tolerance, diversity and the absolute meaning of 'freedom of religion'.

    It has been my finding that people of my particular complexion have not faired very well in holy scriptures. We often seem to be a curse of some sort or find ourselves enslaved.

    At least the Constitution (by way of amendment) recognizes my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    As much as I detest religion, all religious folk do not inject their religious views into their political beliefs. To quantify how many do or don't is up for debate. To say they all do, isn't accurate though.

    Are those who don't inject their religious views into politics not "religious" by your standards? Perhaps...... But if they go by the Christian label, but adhere to good policies that advocate freedom (libertarianism in my case if I were to vote for a religious politician).

  3. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    First black president, female, etc is insignificant in my eyes. It's the policy that matters, not the religion, or lack thereof.

    I'm Atheist, but I do not live in a fantasy world that all Atheists are amazing people. If I'm not mistaken, Stalin was an Atheist, we saw how well he worked out in a position of power.......

    Nothing to do with politics if the person of faith keeps their religion out of their policies, and understands the constitution and freedom.

    Good, and (should) hold liberty higher than any religion. We're a republic, not a theocracy.
  4. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot

    I didn't say they all do, I merely stated that they must make a choice. Certainly, many think up inventive equivocations to rationalize their choice, but the bible (if read plainly and in context) is clear on this point. Compromise is not allowed. A benevolent, divinely inspired monarchy is put forth in the bible as the perfect form of government, not a democratic republic such as we have in this country.
    #44 Geko45, Oct 6, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  5. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist


    Fair enough then, many religious folk don't follow their bibles to a T. If they did, we'd really be screwed! The few that do we call "extremists" :supergrin:

    Anyways, my point is, if that politician claims to be of faith, but does not follow the bible when it comes to politics (and advocates freedom/personal liberties). I'll take him any day over an "Atheist" like Stalin. Religion, or lack thereof does not automatically make you a good or bad politician.

    Back to what you were originally getting at though, yes I wouldn't want someone who followed the bible to a T, because I'm not a fan of the government it advocates, as you said.
    #45 OctoberRust, Oct 6, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  6. Trew2Life

    Trew2Life #intheflesh

    You don't think the first ______ POTUS is significant? I think it breaks down walls and barriers and stereotypes that otherwise discourage people from attaining their full potential. It realizes the American dream, that anyone can be/do anything.

    But, as another OP noted, a good christian would always do good christian things; at home; at work; at play. The 2012 GOP/DNC Platform includes more than political ideology. The religoticians are weaving their theology into the frabic of the Constitution and the mindset of the framers; insisting that this is 'one nation under God'. (More) Legislative morality frightens the bejuses out of me.
  7. I agree, there are still a lot of biases floating around. In a Gallup Poll last year people indicated that they would not vote for their party's nominee if they were otherwise qualified if they were:
    • Black -- 5%
    • A woman -- 6%
    • Catholic -- 7%
    • Baptist -- 7%
    • Jewish -- 9%
    • Hispanic -- 10%
    • Mormon -- 22%
    • Gay -- 32%
    • An atheist -- 49%
    We're not going to see a Hispanic, female, gay, atheist president anytime soon.

  8. That's just because you're an immoral (amoral) godless heathen. :cool:
  9. Trew2Life

    Trew2Life #intheflesh

    We have so much in common; except for the tax cheating, stealing and murder part :cool:
    Question: Is the Mrs atheist too ... would it matter?

    "I believe in morality, which is doing right regardless of what I am told .... not in religion, which is doing what I am told regardless of what is right."
  10. This is just one of those things we will have to agree to disagree on.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  11. At minimum, demands of the clergy upon the "faithful" are their time and treasure.

    In more extreme cases, clergy not only demands time and treasure, but also, as in the case of 9/11/01, blood and lives as well.

    Even in the relatively benign western religions, treasure wasted in supporting "the church" and more to the point, the indolent con-men clergy that infest "the church", is money that does NOT go towards the health, welfare, and education of the faithful's own children and is thus, totally wasted.

  12. I'll say this for the atheist usual suspects, you guys are intelligent, well-read, and you can write. That's rare on a gun forum.

    I do wish that non-believers would stop laying the cruelty of the crusades/inquisitions, and the money-harping 'ministries' at the feet of Christians. I would dare to say the 'true' Christians are not responsible for those things. Between about 500 AD and 1550 AD, you probably had to look under rocks to find Christians. There was a large religious organization, complete with religious trappings & symbology, but they are doctrinally not Christian and freely admit to the doctrinal chasm, of their making, that separates them from Protestants -- they're proud of it. They should not be expected to have behaved with circumspect morality, because they did not have new natures or Divine assistance that come with true conversion, which in turn is accompanied by (and flows from) correct doctrine. And is there no end to the river of pedophile priests...? I think there's a clue there. Just saying.

    Anyway, you guys are worthy ideological opponents. Well done.

    On the subject of evolution, I've always wondered a couple of things. Why do all giraffes have long necks? Was it as simple as evolving long necks to avoid competition with grazing animals? Why are there no short-necked giraffes?

    And why does the turtle have a shell when the lizard, who lived in similar environments, didn't feel the need of one? Where is the turtle that didn't grow a shell for self-defense?

  13. Fist of all, can I say that I have never seen such a collection of intelligent, knowledgeable and well reasoned posts in a single thread in all the time I have been on Glock Talk. Congratulations to all!

    It is important to distinguish between different types of atheist. Atheism is an unfortunate term dating back to a time when all ideologies which sought to explain the nature of life and existence and the proper forms of behaviour within that scheme were religions. What proper atheists object to is the irrational nature of those ideolologies and the tendency of their followers to impose them on others. In fact, socialism and communism are merely ideologies which differ from religion in little other than the existence of God. They are just as irrational and just as eager to impose their ideologies on others as any other religion.

    And so it is fallacious to argue, as many theists do, that Stalin et al demonstrate that atheism does not lead to freedom or whatever good you choose, because Stalin was simply following a different but equally bad and equally irrational ideology.

  14. English, I think that you want to carve out a nitch for an atheism that you can be proud of. The point of the Stalin example is this: if there is no God ordained morality, then it is up to humans to decide what is moral. In that case, the humans in power get to decide. Fascism, socialism and racism are rational belief systems, based on the idea that there is no higher authority than the state.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  15. Do you still advocate slavery, putting adulterers to death, putting rape victims (in some circumstances) to death, and stoning women to death on their father's doorstep if they weren't a virgin when they got married?

  16. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Is racism a rational belief system based on the idea that a deity said so?
  17. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot

    No, they don't (and the state is not the highest authority). If there is no objective source of moral truth then the state has no legitimate claim to rule. If morality can only ever be subjective, then one person's opinion is no more or less valid than anyone elses. Therefore, no one's opinion on what ougth to be can (or should) be enforced on another.

    What this logically leads to is the barest minimum form of government most accurately expressed by libertarianism where the only just laws are designed such that one individual is prohibited only from interfering with the rights of another (and is otherwise free to do as they please) and government is only large enough to effectively enforce those protective laws.

    Communism adopts atheism, not because they agree that morality is subjective, but rather because it is politically expedient for that form of government to eliminate any entity that might claim moral authority and challenge their regime. So, while communism may adopt the trappings of atheism, atheism only ever logically leads to libertarianism.
    #57 Geko45, Oct 16, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  18. A short neck giraffe is called Okapi. A turtle without a shell is a crocodile. These are the closest relatives of the two animals you mentioned.

    Same as a very hairy human is called an ape.
  19. Humans decided what morality lines the pages of the bible. Has nothing to do with a God. Deuteronomy was supposed to be an original part of the Torah. It was not. It was added later during the rule of Josiah I believe.
  20. An involved explanation is needed to address this question. But just for the sake of argument,what if I said yes (which I don't). How can an atheist tell me there is anything wrong with any of those practices?

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Similar Threads Forum Date
Study: Atheism Rooted in Poor Father Relationships Religious Issues Sep 15, 2015
Top World Religious Leaders Revert to Atheism. Test-Posts Here Jun 6, 2015
The New Atheism, faith and science Religious Issues Jan 16, 2015
Lawrence Krauss debates islam vs atheism Religious Issues Dec 31, 2014
Atheism Pays Big Religious Issues Oct 18, 2014

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus