:dubious: That’s as much as to say that “rights” are something coded in our DNA. You can’t seriously believe that!
I was originally going to answer the OP with a “no”, but after reading this thread I’ve changed my mind.
I would refuse to vote for a candidate based solely on his/her religion if their religion was whichever convoluted one magellan01 subscribes to.
I said I would not vote for an atheist. I do not see someone who believes that rights are derived from man as being as adamant tin protecting those rights as someone who believes that they were God given. That we were imbued with them upon our creation and that they, therefore are unalienable. It is my opinion that someone who beleives that rights were bestowed by man might find it easier to think that another man (him) might have a better take on things.
The logic I alluded to goes to a higher order being a a source of higher authority. Is a kid more likely to listen to what his brother tells him to do or his father?
I’m not saying that our laws are derived from God, I’m saying that our most fundemental rights are. And that those that we’ve added are based on that foundation. I am not as concerned with people amanding the Constitution as I am with those would chose to ignore our humanity and the most basic rights that come along with it. Let me put it this way, as long as someone has the belief that 1) God Created you (non-denominational) and 2) that in his creating you he imbued you with certain basic rights, we will not have a Stalin or a Lenin.
I never said “religious”. I don’t care if he practices a religion, only that he believe in a higher power, a Creator.
And that would be an advantage. But not enough of one to over ride the shortcomings.
You’re right. Poorly worded. See my last response to BrainGlutton.
Why take a chance? If one is elected I hope they do the right thing, but I’ll err on the side of caution.
As someone already pointed out, it does. Sure, there are a handful of Christians who not only contort the religion but do so to justify killing. But to compare that handul to the throngs around the world blowing people up and beheading them (and not just Iraq) and cheering them on I think is beyond ridiculous. And the Muslim contingent in this country has done a poor job of separating itself from murderous Islaminc fundamentalists. More than one "peaceful"mosque has been a cover for murderous scumbags. Does that mean that no Muslims are peaceful and good men. Absolutely not. But I see no point in taking a chance to get someone in office that is sympathetic to murders OR will put other people in power that will aid the enemy.
I never said essence was physical. Obvioulsy rights fall outside the physical world. As does essence.
Let me ask you something. Do you agree with this statement?:
“…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalianable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”
If not, which part, and why.
Er, that’s called “religion”. And it narrows the list of religions down by a lot, too. Basically what you’re saying is “I don’t care if he’s religious, I just want him to embrace Christianity’s most fundamental religious tenet.” Which is it?
No. I don’t believe any “Creator” has endowed anyone with anything, nor that the mentioned rights are specific to men. I believe that the unalienable rights possessed by all people have infinite merit and power on their own, and as a man I take offense to the insinuation that my people (humans) aren’t good enough to ensure those rights without being threatened with outlandish fairy tales. I’d much rather my politicians believed in universal human rights for their own sake, than that they believe in rights because somebody told them that some invisible creature (whose wishes always seem to be reinterpreted every few years as convenient) thinks they’re important. I find it distressing that much of our nation’s modern political culture doesn’t think basic human rights are important enough to stand on their own merits, actually.
But your reasoning for this belief is, frankly, stupid. There’s no reason to believe that a person would be any less dedicated to the concept of human rights because he doesn’t believe in God. Absolutely none. There’s even less reason to believe that a person who believes in God will have a stronger belief in the importance of human rights. You’ve given absolutely no support for this idea.
And I’m refering specifically to the laws that protect those rights. Why do you think that I, as an atheist, am more likely to be okay with someone abridging my freedom of speech than someone who believes in a diety? Your argument only makes sense if you are also asserting that atheists cannot have convictions, morals, and/or ethics. You’ve provided no evidence for this belief at all. Naming famous dictators who were atheists doesn’t prove anything; there are far more tyrants throughout history who have claimed their authority was granted to them by God. This doesn’t mean (as much as Der Trihs would argue otherwise) that religious people are inherently untrustworthy, or incapable of supporting human rights, and anyone asserting otherwise is engaging in nothing less than base bigotry.
And you’ve given absolutely no reason to think that atheists are any more likely to ignore that than someone who believes in God.
No, but we might get a Khomeini, or a bin Laden, or a Cotton Mather. The importance a person puts on human rights is entirely divorced from their religious convictions. There is no connection between the two. You cannot use religion as a reasonable measure of someone’s support of human rights. It’s a completely irrational position.
For the purposes of this discussion, I don’t see that there’s a meaningful distinction.
Why? Let’s say an atheist and a Christian are both running for a Senate seat. Both of them swear up and down that they are absolutely dedicated to the concepts of human freedom enshrined in the Constitution. Why do you think the atheist is more likely to be lying when he says that then the Christian?
And neither of you is correct. You believe in God. 100% of all religious terrorists also believe in God. Does this make you more likely to be a terrorist?
Why? Aside from who they pray too, why is a Muslim terrorist any different than a Christian terrorist? If a terrorist twists Christianity to justify homicide, that does not reflect on Christianity as a whole. Why should Islam be held to a different standard?
The Christian community in this country would be equally damned, if judged by that same standard.
Equality, justice, and fairness, evidentally, do not sit high in your list of priorities. I find it ironic that, despite your claims that atheists can’t be trusted to safeguard the founding principles of this nation, your arguments in this thread show precious little respect for them yourself.
Right, suuure. Tell it to, say, the gays in America who are harassed in God’s name. Tell it to the victims of the same Islamic extremists you were just talking about. Tell it to the victims of the Inquisition, or the Crusades. Tell it to the blacks who were enslaved in God’s name. Tell it to the billions of women who have been oppressed in the name of gods. The history of religion is a litany of tyranny, of rights ignored or taken away.
A false analogy, since even if God exists, he’s silent. You can’t listen to what he says if he says nothing.
Hitler.
Belief in a creator is a religious belief.
There is no creator, and if there was he couldn’t endow us with rights. Nor are people created equal, except in the legal sense of the term.
It is if they’ve decided they have the right and the duty to send me there.
Actually, your point about not voting for a Muslim American running for office in America based on the actions of a minority of Muslims isn’t even a point–it’s just absurd.
I maintain that if you think that the rights come from the Big Guy, you are *less apt *to believe that they can be undone by your whim. If you do not grant the logic of that, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Anything else at this point would be stupid.
Although as an atheist you may defend those rights as fervently as anyone, the only people who can adhere to stripping people of the most fundamental rights are atheists. If a Deist were to ponder stripping rights away. he would first have to disavow himself of the notion that we were created and that our Creator inbued us with unalienable rights. This does not mean that an atheist cannot hold office and be a fervent protector of those rights. But as I think that the threat to those rights will come from athesim, either in the short term or the long, I will use my vote to prevent people from being comfortable with, what I see to be an incorrect and hubristic position.
Many morals, mores and ethics come from culture. The rights I am talking about, the rights enumerated in the D of I transcend the ephemeral natures of societies.
And they’ve all contorted religion. I would be equally fervent in not giving my vote to a religious extremist—of any stripe. Years ago it was the Catholics and the Protestants who killed in the name of God. That is a fact. Today it is the Musims. That too is a fact. It is also a fact that the most murderous dictators the world has seen in the past 100 years were Godless. Do you wish to chalk that up merely to chance?
I have. Several times. You have ignored it, several times.
I view both religious fundamentalis and atheists (strong version in particular) as extremists. One confuses their interpretation of God with God. The other seeks to quash the concept of God. I find them both hubristic, closed minded, and unhealthy to society.
Not this again. Look, I’ve explained this numerous times. I think you are aware of my position. It is a huge difference. If oyu’re truly interested in it I’d ask you to check some of the older threads on the subject.
The Christian believes that our natural rights are inseperable from oour being, as they were God given. There is an extra—huge—hurdle for him to get over before we get despotism.
Miller, you’re not being yourself here. Do you think that is more likely that a Protestant or a non-Protestant will be elected the next President? Protestant, right? Because while there are Jewish and Catholic candidates, there are more Protestants. That does not guarantee a Protestant will be elected, but where would you put your money?
Because, unless you agree with the warped view of Der Trihs, there are more Muslim terrorists than Christain (non-Muslim) ones. And your question cheats a little. You ask why is a M terrorist more likely than a C terrorist to perform an act of terroism. They ciould very well be equally as likley. But the real question, the fair question is: why is a M candidate more likely than a C candidate to be sympathetic to their respective strains of terrorism. We have tons of experience with C candidates and, to the best of my knowledge, the number who we have tied to terrorism is zero. I’m sure there were some in the south who were members of or sympathetic to the Klan, and that probablyqualifies. But, we can mire ourselves in history or deal with the here and now.
The fact is that the threat we face today is not tied to any strain of Christian terrorism. The threat comes from radical Islamic fundamentalism And in this country, someone who is a mUslim is more likely to be sympathetic to their views than a non-Muslim. If you disagree with that, we should just each move on to other discussions.
Please don’t try to insinuate any equivalence between Christian terorists and Islamic terroists. They are different in both degree and incidence. Again, maybe we should just move on.
I see nothing ironic about caution. Either Islam is a murderous religion or its adherents have allowed it to be hijacked by the murderous. Either way, I’ll stay away from it. If the non-murderous adherents want to snatch the religion back, my postion will change. I hope they do, but based on their general silence after 9/11, I won’t hold my breath. Until theydo, fuck 'em.
[QUOTE=Miller]
And I think I’ll vote for whoever I want. Sorry if you have a problem with that, comrade.
That point though could equally be used as a reason for removing a law; after all, if you believe the right of not being murdered comes from God, why is it needed in legislature? It can’t be undone by my whim, so I might as well just get rid of it if it’s politically expedient or inconveniencing me somehow.
magellan01, psychologists call this cognitive dissonance.
Of course not, but that’s a bad analogy. Let’s use a better one. If pit bulls account for 20% of dog bites and collies only account for 1%, then obviously a pit bull is much more likely to bite you than a collie.
So tell me, how many Christians are threatening to “send you there?” Are there millions of Christians thirsting for your blood? Or is this just a bugaboo you’ve conjured up in a desperate attempt to draw attention away from Islamic fascism?
And what you’re doing here is psychologizing, a form of the ad hominem fallacy.
Well, aside from what LonesomePolecat pointed out, let’s see what you mean, or if you know what you mean.
Regarding your post, define “this”, and explain clearly how cognitive dissonance is in play. Unless, of sourse, you were just throwin around terms you don’t understand and hoping others wouldn’t either.
That’s one of the sillier things I’ve read here, given the history of religion.
That’s an out and out lie.
No; tyrants are people who use religion for the purpose it was created for; to manipulate the gullible. It’s the people who try to do good in the name of religion who are perverting it.
Again, Hitler.
Utter. Complete. Garbage. Christians have been some of the most brutal tyrants in history; it got to the position is it today by mass slaughter and tyranny. Crushing everyone under God’s boot has always been the major goal of Christianity. It is evil; a religion of guilt and death; it has nothing at all to do with respecting people’s rights.
At various times of the years, I’ve had problems with the Creator bit, but I am no longer a hardcore atheist. It was too depressing. I’ve always thought that man, regardless of nationality, religion, or immigration status 
, was endowed with certain unalienable rights though.
-
Evidently there are a few that think that they have the authority to decide on their victim’s crimes and to execute capital punishment. As I’m not a doctor, nor do I perform abortions, I’m not too concerned that I’ll be getting their brand of justice for that particular crime. But they are out there and they do do what they do. It’s not that much of a stretch to infer that if they were to move into power, they’d do what they could to have “Christo-fascism” enacted into law.
-
How prevalent is Islamic fascism in the US? Is it enough to tar all Muslims in the country with that brush? Or is it merely your excuse to not elect a competent Muslim because you don’t like his religion?
I didn’t attack the poster, I attacked his behavior. Cognitive dissonance is not a condition, nor a character trait. See below.
Cognitive dissonance is the disturbing feeling of being party to both a strong belief and an observation that seems to conflict with it, and the decision to relieve same feeling by creating new beliefs that reconcile the two cognitions. Your belief that traditional Judeo-Christians (or “Deists”, to use your word) are morally superior to atheists has been conflicted by your observations that there are Jews/Christians who do wrong and atheists who do right as well as the other way around; rather than revise your belief to something more rational like “Some people are morally superior to others, which can be but is not necessarily related to their faith”, you’ve created a new belief: A person can only be expected to value fundamental human rights if they believe in an invisible man who molded all people and magically endowed them with those rights.
And you’re more apt to believe they can be undone by a whim of God. Why do you think your scenario is more likely than mine?
Look, respect for human rights is something people support regardless of religion. We can agree on that much, right? You do, at least, allow that there exsist atheist who do not want to overturn the Constitution, right? And surely, you realize that there are religious people out there who want to overturn the Constitution, and institute some form of theocracy. Do we agree on that much?
Okay, now, nobody’s going to vote for someone who campaigns on the platform of “Screw the Constitution.” Anyone running for office is going to pay lip service to the idea of supporting the Constitution. So, anyone who wanted to overthrow the Constitution is going to lie about it during their campaign, yes? Okay: you have two candidates, one of whom is religious, and one of whom is an atheist. Both claim that they support the Constitution fully. Why do you assume that the atheist is more likely to be lying about that than the believer?
Let’s take this a little further: someone who wants to overthrow the Constitution, and is willing to lie about it in order to get elected, is probably also willing to lie about their religious beliefs in order to get elected. And it’s pretty damn hard to get elected in this country if you’re not a Christian. So, logically, an atheist who wanted to overturn the Constitution is going to campaign as a Christian: if he’s willing to hide his goal, he’s certainly willing to hide his motivation. So, logically, if you’re really that concerned about an elected official tearing up the Constitution, you should vote for the atheist. If he’s honest about not believing in God, he’s probably honest about supporting the Constitution, too.
Blatant nonsense. Al Qaeda is not composed of atheists, and they would love nothing more than to strip people of their fundamental rights. Again, respect for human rights is not integral to any mainstream religious belief. The Declaration of Independence is not a religious text. It’s language and ideas are not part of any formal system of belief. A religious person is no more likely to believe in the ideals of the DoI than an atheist.
The vast majority of people in this country are not Deists. Christians are not Deists. Jews are not Deists. Nor are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Wiccans. Nor are atheists. Belonging to any of these groups does not make one more, or less, likely to support the tenets of the Constitution or the ideal of the Declaration. There is no contradiction between belonging to any of those religions, and being opposed to the Constitution.
You really think the threat of this country turning into a godless dictatorship is greater than becoming a theocracy?
So you believe, but the fact that you believe that in the first place is a product of the culture in which you were raised, and the morals and ethics that culture values.
Oh, that’s such bullshit. If “not believing in God” is an extremist position, then so is “believing in God.”
Where as your interpretation of God is what he’s really like?
Atheists do not seek to quash the concept of God. Most atheists don’t give a damn who or what you worship, just so long as you don’t force us to worship it, too. Quite a few atheists find religion to be, on the whole, an admirable and positive thing, myself included. Atheists are no more likely to be like Der Trihs than Christians are to be like Fred Phelps.
As I said, for the purposes of this discussion. I am aware of the differences between “religion” and “belief.” For the purposes of this discussion, the difference is immaterial. If it bothers you that much, just substitute “belief” for “religion” whenever you see it. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m using the terms interchangably.
No, he does not. This is not a part of any mainstream Christian dogma. It is a part of Deist belief, which is explicitly a non-Christian belief system.
Yes, any given president is virtually certain to be a Protestant. But that doesn’t mean that any given protestant is likely to be president. Yes, there are more muslim terrorists worldwide than other religions. Any randomly picked terrorist is more likely to be Muslim than anything else. That doesn’t mean that any randomly picked Muslim is even remotely likely to be a terrorist, or supportive of terrorist activities.
Because Muslim nations tend to be poor, underdeveloped, and to have a history of exploitation by stronger nations.
The answer is: they’re not.
It would absolutely qualify, and that alone drives the number far past “zero,” and they sure as hell weren’t relegated to the South.
Now, let’s have the other side of that question, to be “fair:” How many Muslim candidates have we had that have had ties to terrorism?
Speak for yourself. You think it’s the Taliban that’s hanging around outside gay clubs waiting to put a beat-down on the next godless homo who comes out? How far, exactly, has the radical Islamic agenda advanced in American politics? How many bombings have Islamic terrorists carried out on US soil? By my count, they’ve got two under their belt, although that second one was a doozy. How many acts of terrorism have been carried out by Christians in this country, in the last hundred years?
And Christians are more likely to be sympathetic to radical Christian fundamentalism than a non-Christian. But an atheist is unlikely to be sympathetic to either of them!
But that’s beside the point. What you’re overlooking here is that “more likely” is not the same as “likely.” Men are more likely to be rapists than women. Would you refuse to vote for a man because he’s more likely assault a woman while in office?
Bullshit. Terrorists are terrorists. A Christian terrorist is no better, or safer, or forgivable than a Muslim terrorist. The only concrete difference is in numbers.
Or, it’s neither.
I do have a problem with it when your decision on who to vote for is fueled by ignorance, lies, and prejudice.