Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No one has ever observed the Earth making an orbit around the Sun, yet we know it happens.
If you are willing to dismiss science because every single piece of the puzzle isn't there at your disposal, then we might as well be living in clay huts and thinking natural occurrences such as floods and lightning is God's anger towards us.
Originally posted by Devil King
If I had my druthers, only atheists would be allowed to run for state or federal office; as any true atheist would not have a set of beliefs to force upon on his constituancy.
Are you absolutely sure about that? An Athiest politician would never have a belief-based agenda?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you absolutely sure about that? An Athiest politician would never have a belief-based agenda?
Not one they would attribute to the balance of your eternal soul.
And political beliefs are much easier to argue than are a belief in god. As can be observed in every city in this country, Sunday isn't a day of rest for it's people. As easily seen on this very forum is the idea that morals are congruent with religion. It simply is not true, especially when viewed through the prism of morals throughout history. "Doing the right thing" didn't suddenly appear on Earth because a few guys took something away from the preachings of a supposedly divine murder victim.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So yes, an Atheist politician is not immune to pushing belief-based agendas.I could list-off some really famous ones from the last century, but that's another conversation.
I editied, so check that out.
I seriously doubt any atheist politician pointed his finger at anyone and said the weight of your soul is based on how you intend to vote. I mean, other than Mr. Karl Rove.
By all means, list away.
Originally posted by Devil King
"Doing the right thing" didn't suddenly appear on Earth because a few guys took something away from the preachings of a supposedly divine murder victim.
Sure, people had ideas of morality before that. And?
Originally posted by Devil King
By all means, list away.
I'm sure you're aware of the various murderous communist regimes of the 20th century. As Dinesh D'Souza pointed out in his last book; Stalin killed more people in a week than the Inquisition did in three centuries.
But like I said, that's an entirely different conversation.
------
So why is it that you would prefer Atheist leadership? I personally would vote for an Athiest over a religous candidate if I liked him or her as a person. But you seem to specifically want an Athiest in office, only for that one reason.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Sure, people had ideas of morality before that. And?I'm sure you're aware of the various murderous communist regimes of the 20th century. As Dinesh D'Souza pointed out in his last book; Stalin killed more people in a week than the Inquisition did in three centuries.
But like I said, that's an entirely different conversation.
------
So why is it that you would prefer Atheist leadership? I personally would vote for an Athiest over a religous candidate if I liked him or her as a person. But you seem to specifically want an Athiest in office, only for that one reason.
It's lovely to say they had "ideas" of morality, as though morality didn't actually enter the equation. But it did. Humanity didn't find an easter basket full of principles the moment Jesus got down off that cross.
I was unaware that Mr. Stalin was a candidate for a civil office inside the borders of America. And as I set up in my earlier responses, this conversation is in response to the political realities of America.
I would prefer a leadership that doesn't subscribe to ancient desert rhetoric as a means to base and judge our modern lives. I have zero issues with electing persons who didn't subscribe to a religon that is intrinsically based on someone else buying in to it as well. There is always room for rational debate when it comes to political discussion, but religion sets itself up to be indisputible. That's one of the main reasons it has managed to creep its way back into the political arena. There is a reasonable arena for debate over political ideologies in politics, such can not be said for the rhetoric of god and his supposed absolutism.
Originally posted by Devil King
It's lovely to say they had "ideas" of morality, as though morality didn't actually enter the equation. But it did. Humanity didn't find an easter basket full of principles the moment Jesus got down off that cross.
Yeah that's basically what I said.
Originally posted by Devil King
I would prefer a leadership that doesn't subscribe to ancient desert rhetoric as a means to base and judge our modern lives. I have zero issues with electing persons who didn't subscribe to a religon that is intrinsically based on someone else buying in to it as well. There is always room for rational debate when it comes to political discussion, but religion sets itself up to be indisputible. That's one of the main reasons it has managed to creep its way back into the political arena. There is a reasonable arena for debate over political ideologies in politics, such can not be said for the rhetoric of god and his supposed absolutism.
Well so far, every single presdient we've had was a subscriber to "ancient desert rhetoric", including all current candidates. So if it continues, then what? Are you gonna move?
I really don't care what a candidates relgious views are, I vote for who I like.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah that's basically what I said.Well so far, every single presdient we've had was a subscriber to "ancient desert rhetoric", including all current candidates. So if it continues, then what? Are you gonna move?
I really don't care what a candidates relgious views are, I vote for who I like.
Well, then if that was the idea you were attempting to further, you are wrong.
That is absolutey not true. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Lincoln did not subscribe to an ancient desert rhetoric. Mr. Jefferson even went so far as to take razor to bible and remove all divine aspects of the Jesus story. Live by his words, sure, but don't buy in to the idea that he was god. Almost 300 years old, and we still haven't learned from his example. They spoke of "A" god, but they did not ascribe denomination to him, it or she.
So, you'd vote for a guy you'd like to have a beer with?
Originally posted by Devil King
Well, then if that was the idea you were attempting to further, you are wrong.
Why?
Originally posted by Devil King
That is absolutey not true. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Lincoln did not subscribe to an ancient desert rhetoric. Mr. Jefferson even went so far as to take razor to bible and remove all divine aspects of the Jesus story. Live by his words, sure, but don't buy in to the idea that he was god. Almost 300 years old, and we still haven't learned from his example. They spoke of "A" god, but they did not ascribe denomination to him, it or she.
Exactly, they believed in a god, which was my point.
Originally posted by Devil King
So, you'd vote for a guy you'd like to have a beer with?
No, and I don't like that saying because I think it diminishes the professionalism of the candidate. I vote for the one who's message I like the most, and I think is the most honest.
Originally posted by Devil King
Also, I can't recall another book that was handed out to newly elected members of our governing body, other than the Jefferson bible. If divinity is removed from the Christ story, I can't imagine that there is much room for debate about the foundation of morals.
You know Christianity isn't the only religion in the US. Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran, and it was the same one that current Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison swore on when he was elected in 2006.
Because the assumption that it was the "idea" of morals implies that actual morals, in their current form or otherwise, were an end resut of the influence of Jesus. Such is not the case.
"A" god, wich is subjective based on the writing of the two, does not imply "The" god, which is the supposition of your argument. "A: god that cannot be defined can not be attributed some measure of moral influence on a species he did not specifically create.
does it dimisnish the professionalism of the candidate, or the rationalism of the voter? It isn't a statement of my own that is under question.
Exacty my point, Chrisitanity: a belief that Jesus was the Christ and thus the savior and son of mankind, is not the state religion of a nation that recognizes no religion in it's mandate. This is illustrated in the fact that Mr. Jefferson didn't recognize Jesus as divine, but as a Ghandi-esque figure that illustrated, on his own or through the accounts of others, a lifestyle that demonstrated little judgement, machismo, agenda or sense of self-superiority. Considering Mr. Jefferson's legitimate response to the actions of the rulers of the middle-east of the time, I doubt he wold have objected to hacking up a copy of the Quran, either. Not that Mr. Mohammad displayed an excess of qualities worth emuating.
Originally posted by Robtard
No one has ever observed the Earth making an orbit around the Sun, yet we know it happens.If you are willing to dismiss science because every single piece of the puzzle isn't there at your disposal, then we might as well be living in clay huts and thinking natural occurrences such as floods and lightning is God's anger towards us.
The difference in your comparison is that one is a fact (that the earth orbits the sun) and the other (macroevolution) is a theory--nothing more.
I am not dismissing science, I am a firm advocate of science because it is one of the Bible's greatest heralds. What I dismiss is the theory of (macro) evolution because it has been foisted off as having occurred despite the abundance of obstacles, problems, and other impossibilities associated with it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveYou don't know it to be fact but you are taking the word of others that it is, this is the same logic that you have used over and over.
The difference in your comparison is that one is a fact (that the earth orbits the sun) and the other (macroevolution) is a theory--nothing more.I am not dismissing science, I am a firm advocate of science because it is one of the Bible's greatest heralds. What I dismiss is the theory of (macro) evolution because it has been foisted off as having occurred despite the abundance of obstacles, problems, and other impossibilities associated with it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveOMG, when will you drop this??? It is a dumb and ludicrous question that doesn't have an answer. You can not answer the question; it would be the same as saying 100 years ago that with all our technology and science why we haven’t gone to the Moon. The simple answer (if you can give it one) is that it hasn’t been done/found yet.
But, you still have not answered the questions that I posed to you earlier:
As for your question about the fossils I have posted the link to explain in laymen terms why there are not billions of fossils for you to see, did you not read the link? Do you not read the links that we post? You expect us to read the myriad of links and videos that you post, seems fair that you would do the same.
Do geologists succumb to circular reasoning to explain the age of rock layers and fossils? See point 0:21:50 in the video below to understand what I am referring to it is somewhat funny as well. Enoy.
^if you werent jia, you wud have lost a WHOLE deal of credibility by posting this. this man's ability to lie is awesome. fill ignorant church goers with lots of psuedo scientific theories, and fantastical false claims and you probably will only accept them to look impressed , not to come up with questions which only experts in the field can ask. kinda like tryin to prove the existance of god with the MYSTERIOUS behviour of quanta.