I'm not sure what you're asking...my religion or the candidate's religion?
If the candidate's religion doesn't render his outlook on policey to alien from my own, then I don't have an issue with it.
That being said, I will never support an atheist.
That's just the thing: it does.
Atheists don't share a common understanding of the Natual Law premis because they reject the source of all rights. Since the source is rejected, the existance of the rights themselves falls into question.
That's just the thing: it does.
Atheists don't share a common understanding of the Natual Law premis because they reject the source of all rights. Since the source is rejected, the existance of the rights themselves falls into question.
You base this on the idea that you are correct in what you believe and that those atheists are wrong. There is very little evidence that can be substantiated that a god does indeed exist. The major proof of him/her/it is in a book that said god had a hand in writing.
You base this on the idea that you are correct in what you believe and that those atheists are wrong.
There is very little evidence that can be substantiated that a god does indeed exist.
The major proof of him/her/it is in a book that said god had a hand in writing.
Are you saying that because a person is an atheist they are immoral?
I don't agree with that. It seems to me that this is my own opinion mind you that those that are religious believe themselves to be mre moral and are in fact less in my view.
The idea is that nobody is correct, not even one, justone.
Oh we aren't. If nobody is correct then you are saying there is no god or you believe in that falsely. I am not sure what you are saying and don't want to put words in your mouth.
I haven't seen it yet.
That is to make co-existence of corrects, incoreects, more corrects or less corrects possible there has to be an entity which, proven or not proven to exist, has to be presumed to be absolutely correct. Unfortunately for atheists it is self evident that the entity which can possibly be presumed, proven or not proven to exist, to be absolutely correct in the Nature can be only the Creator of the Nature, the One godly people believe in and godless people deny. Removing the Creator from the equation leaves you vulnerable as with my training in logic and boxing I will always prove that I am more correct than you are. Thus God acts as your only protector and the only guarantee of your rights.
Who is this Testiculees dude, who's been a member since 2007 with zero posts?
I do agree with Jerry that I find it hard to understand how an athiest can believe in natural rights.
Thank you for the explanation. As I said it was a minor point, as I don't expect or really care what the basis is for a politician's political philosophy. As long as we agree on policy, I'm willing to support a given candidate.
Its pretty irrelevant to me. I care about where the candidates stand on the issues, not what they personally believe in. Obviously a candidates beliefs can affect his stand on the issues and his stand on the issues will affect my views. I do think candidates should respect religion. I wouldn't vote for a militant athiest, but that's more because they tend to be as narrow minded and condescending as the worst legalistic Christians.
I do agree with Jerry that I find it hard to understand how an athiest can believe in natural rights. However, its not a major issue for me. As long as they agree with me on policy, I'm not overly concerned about the basis of their political philosophy.
It really does not take religion to see that people need to have rights and are free. God really adds nothing to that. The concept of god only tells me that some people think themselves less without one. I tend to think that you are probably really a great person and get your morals and values from within and not from a god. If the idea of god brings you peace and comfort that is wonderful i ma happy for you in that.
How does one decide that something that defies all logic and all the rules of nature and has really zero substantiation is absolutely correct. It would be as if I believed that the Lord of The Rings were history. Both works of fantasy.
I can do it myself and you can't disprove it. In the beginning Inferno created the ..... How can you say with certainty that I did not. If you can't believe that with no proof how can you believe in the god of the bible?
Inexperience does not negate possibility. All people's experiences are naturally limited by various factors.
The conclusion: I will never support an atheist
This must be dependent on a series of premises, some of which are false:
Premise One: Every atheist I've encountered had an outlook on policy that was alien from my own (True premise)
Premise two: If I have never encountered something, it cannot exist (false premise)
Premise three: I will never support a politician who's outlook on policy is alien from my own (true premise)
Conclusion: I will never suppor tan athiest because all atheists have an outlook on policy that is alien from my own.
Since premise two is false, the conclusion is invalid.
Had you said: I doubt I will ever support an atheist.
It adjusts the false premise to "If I have never encountered something, I will doubt that it exists" and validates the logic.
And then you would have a logical conclusion.
What you have done with your first statement is fall prey to exactly the same flawed premise that many atheists use when they argue that God does not exist.
Adjusting the premise and conclusion to convey that it is doubt, instead of a unequivocal statement fixes that logical error.
I accept your correction.
If my understanding of atheism is changed, then I would be open to supporting an atheist. However as my understanding exists now, I reserve my vote.
You can say people need to have rights and not believe in natural, inalienable rights.
I've seen some left wingers (not all) argue that man has no natural rights. That our rights are bestowed upon us by a benevolent government and those rights can be taken away by the same government.
I believe we have natural rights that are inalienable and any government that seeks to take them away is illegitimate. I hold this to be an absolute truth. Most atheists I've spoken with reject the notion of absolute truths.
You base this on the idea that you are correct in what you believe and that those atheists are wrong. There is very little evidence that can be substantiated that a god does indeed exist. The major proof of him/her/it is in a book that said god had a hand in writing.
And you ask why we don't support Atheists.:doh
Well do you have any real evidence to show me that this god exists? I mean in a real source outside of the bible which can't be used as a source for proof of god.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?