Intransigent Atheist
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 447
- Reaction score
- 108
- Location
- Cottonwood Heights, UT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'd wouldn't have a problem with an Atheist as a president.
Unless they are radical atheists, who support killing in the name of science.
Buddhist theology does not rely on or need Gods, nor do Buddhist ethics or teachings involve Gods, which is probably why many scholars consider Buddhism to be atheistic rather than theistic
Pwned!
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways Quote:
Yes, I am indeed. Sorry about that. He lumped Buddhists together with all the theologies, which confused me somewhat. I now respect Buddhists ever the more.
"Many scholars" might consider Buddhism atheistic....but how many Buddhists do?
Dunno, but here's a good article from da wiki.
Dunno, but here's a good article from da wiki.
I've encountered different types of atheists
I would not vote for an atheist who actively believes there is no God.
I would vote for an atheist who believes that we don't know nearly enough to start forming opinions on such things.
This is because the former reflects a level of misplaced arrogance that would lead to having a terrible president.
The latter reflects an intelligent difference in belief.
Why do you oppose atheism [?]....
why do you oppose the disbelief in your god [?]
and what relevance does humanism have to do with someone not being qualified?
Have you ever read any of the Buddhist scriptures? There are gods, goddesses, buddhas and demons hanging out all over the place. Buddhist sects run the gamut from full-on polytheism to "we are all one cosmic energy nothingness there is no personal god". No atheist sects that I'm aware of though, and buddhism is certainly not inherently atheist.
I do agree that buddhist ethics and practices can be useful for atheists, but the same could be said of any religion's practices and ethics.
Atheists, being separate from agnostics ideologically, deny God.
I inherently distrust those who reject love and compassion. The rejection of God, what ever the God concept may be, is exactly the the rejection of love and compassion.
I would not vote for a candidate I didn't trust, and I do not trust those who reject love and compassion, ie. Atheists and Humanists.
The so called "moral Atheist" or so called "moral-Humanist" is a hypocrite, as by embracing love and compassion they are serving the God that they reject, and are therefore not realy Atheist or Humanist, but simply confused.
Or perhaps I misunderstood you completely, and you were referring to what are known as "strong atheists." The ones who forego skepticism and simply state "There is most certainly not a god, supernatural or otherwise."
I think that is precisely what galenrox was referring to. So was I, when I referred to those who think "they know".
I've encountered different types of atheists
I would not vote for an atheist who actively believes there is no God.
I would vote for an atheist who believes that we don't know nearly enough to start forming opinions on such things.
This is because the former reflects a level of misplaced arrogance that would lead to having a terrible president.
The latter reflects an intelligent difference in belief.
Did you think you were providing me with information by saying that? And its not "god" its "gods."
Thats a straw man and you know it. You're playing word games with what most people mean by the word god. The disbelief in a supernatural entity is completely unrelated to love and compassion, and to say that atheists reject love and compassionate is being intellectually dishonest at best.
See above.
You have got to be joking. That logic does not follow.
One can be loving and compassionate without belief in anything supernatural because it is in ones character. Its terribly presumptuous of you to insist that by being loving one is not really an atheist. Your whole argument presupposes the existence of god.
"You're not an atheist, because god exists." :roll: What utter tripe.
Whether a person does a good job in office has little to do with religion or lack of Religion. It has to do with intelligence and information about a particular subject.I have vote for atheists. I have to believe in how they live and think of others and this has little to with Being an athiest. Moral and personal ethics have little to do with religion, but have to with human living together in Groups.
Did you think you were providing me with information by saying that? And its not "god" its "gods."
Thats a straw man and you know it. You're playing word games with what most people mean by the word god. The disbelief in a supernatural entity is completely unrelated to love and compassion, and to say that atheists reject love and compassionate is being intellectually dishonest at best.
See above.
You have got to be joking. That logic does not follow.
One can be loving and compassionate without belief in anything supernatural because it is in ones character. Its terribly presumptuous of you to insist that by being loving one is not really an atheist. Your whole argument presupposes the existence of god.
"You're not an atheist, because god exists." :roll: What utter tripe.
Well the bible certainly backs that one... Psalm 53:1Categorically, the Atheist is a fool, and I would not vote to give her power.
I don't know many people of my age or younger personally who are theists thus believe in a god. If my generation is old enough, I don't think there will be much non Atheists left to vote for. As I am an Atheist myself, don't have aproblem with this developpement.
Sure I'd vote for an Atheist. My problems are some Theists. They seem like they are not able to control themselve. When you look at the Islamists form an objective perspective, it looks like every men wants toevery women and they don't think they could hold themselves back when they look at a women. I think that's a bit pathetic or maybe it's just a lack of self-confidence.
What if during their time in office they loose their faith, which holds them back from doing different things?
And because of the people who don't like Atheists because the communists have been Atheists. Read the bible. Jesus was a little communist himself except the thing with Marx and his Anti-Religion campaign.
I think it's not really interesting what a president believes, because you never know if he really believes. I don't even know for sure what the current president believes. Either nothing or is Katholic. What does it matter everybody likes him or at least the vast majority.
PS: Talking about Austria (President Heinz Fischer). But our President doesn't have as much power as in the States. It's more like we have a nice President we are a nice country. Don't know what he actually does except telling our parties to stop fighting and forming a coalition. I start thinking our politicians don't like ruling and prefer eeeeennnnnnnddddlllleeeeeeeeesssssssssss negotiations.
You reject one of many possible concepts of God, but by embracing love and compassion you inherently embrace a number of other concepts of God, and divorce yourself from Atheism.
An Atheist does not embrace any concept of God at all, not even the most abstract of prime moving forces, therefore an Atheist does not embrace love and compassion.
I would be open to voting for the Zen Buddhist who did not subscribe to even one notion of a personified Lord, a living, walking breathing being with 'magickal' powers, etc, because such a Buddhist still believes in God by perusing supreme forces such as love and compassion.
The Atheist peruses only their own selfishness, misguided and lost in their own flawed reasoning of the world, seeing themselves as wise in their own eyes because they use a *relative measure of right and wrong.
Categorically, the Atheist is a fool, and I would not vote to give her power.
You sound like you just oppose the notion of a personified walking person of a God, not God per-se.
Stop right here....
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Jerry said:Once that is clear I would be glad to continue.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
An atheist is resolved in their belief there is no God... Whereas an agnostic may tend to believe or not, but are neither convinced or resolute... This (agnosticism) would be in human terms, default.True; the term "atheist" has no inherent negative connotation, despite the negativity with which theists seek to imbue it; it is a morally neutral term, it's meaning being, more or less, "non-theist".
A person opposed to theism or deism or to the idea of a deity would be an "antitheist", technically speaking.
Pssst... Stop what? I wasn't here when you posted.
Sorry, the free dictionary is crap, which is why you are in semantic error. Please refer to Webster's definition of atheist. (Unless you're from the UK and prefer the Oxford)
I believe that there are no supernatural personal deities. But I am not "opposed" to the idea. The idea is very pleasant, I just don't believe in any past or present human's claims on the existence of one. Jupiter, thor or Yahweh. Each were terrible objects of worship for which they had no proof.
This does not represent my opinion because I am also a pantheist (Which as Dawkins put it, is just sexed up atheism.)Which means that any "ultimate reality" would be natural, not supernatural, and within the forces and laws of nature if it exists. But thanks for trying to tell me what I think again, where would I be without you. So can you not please address everything else I said, it was kinda important, to me at least.
Then I hope we are now clear, unless you want to argue over semantics of something we could have otherwise easily agreed upon, in terms.
Cause to believe no God brings forth tendency to advocate such...
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?