Faith required for POTUS?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I hate the fact that it contributes to the decision at all. I don't care if the person is catholic, buddhist, or wiccan, just have common sense, and do what's right by the people and for the people. Don't let what your religion says effect what happens to the general population, I don't subscribe to your religion, it's a belief not a law, don't make me follow it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Romney also said in todays speech...

"Freedom requires religeon."

I kinda thought that freedom we're trying to spread in the middle east is aimed at the secularists in government.

Looks like a conflict to me.

Only conflict is that one religion doesn't belong in the world. Others are moderate enough.

You've defined the problem. This is what evangelicals think of mormons. How do you make this determination? What is the criteria?

Maybe government should stay with government and religeon should stay with religeon.
History has shown mixing them causes too much trouble.

Mormons aren't even a blip on my radar. Let me know when they start cutting heads off and promote that violence through children programs.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
e: I'm sorry Moonbeam but your reasoning is flawed. The problem with your light bulb analogy is that with the light bulb both states (on and off) are equally probable. The existance of a universe creating sky beardo is not as probable as there not being one, because he is a far far more complex entity then is required for non existence.

M: Is the universe a far more complex entity than can arise out of non-existence? And does the universe not exist within the complexity of your own brain? And I've told you before that the god you don't believe in is not the God that exists. God is God realization, what man can become when the self is transcended and there is only Love. You won't find God in the sky. He is known only through the heart.

Quick point of note here... in short, the answer to your question is yes. Both a theistic and an athesitc view of the universe presuppose something must have always existed, be it god or matter. Since god is an intelligent, willful actor with the capability to mold the entire universe as he sees fit he is necessarily far far more complex then a universe itself. This makes him far far less likely to exist. Oh yeah, and we know the universe exists because we live in it. (all arguments about perception aside)

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip
I always wonder how people get past the uncaused cause. sure, you can believe in evolution and the big bang, but the problem of what was before that. Time itself is something that needs a beginning too, like matter. I fail to understand how people explain those concepts away.

And when you can't you can always make something up like Genesis.

Or the big bang.

The Big Bang is presented as a theory by Scientists where as Genesis is presented as fact based on the beliefs of ancient Sheep Herders.

Yet atheists like youself take the big bang as fact and look at Genesis as a theory.

Actually, every Atheist that I know (myself included) KNOW that the big bang is a theory and Genesis is nowhere near a scientific theory. I do find it rather amusing when religion tries to enter the realm of science and then completely ignores the rules of science.

 

[Lemon law]

But But But---if we don't have a God to create the Universe, what created the Universe?

The big bang theory is just a set of subsequent events with no explanation of prior causality. And we can then later infer with some degree of certainty what those subsequent events were at various points in time, if and only if the laws of physics don't change over time. A mathematical game our species has only acquired in the last few hundreds years. And now we can state with some high degree of certainty, that all religious explanations of creation just don't compute.

And as for prior causality, what created God?

We can also note from the historical record that all societies who have recognized some God
always has a God that looks remarkably like the society's concerns at that time. And this then gives a magnificent chance for some set of priests and priestesses to run around wearing funny hats passing tin cups they expect the populace to fill with riches.


Bah, none of it makes any sense.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Bah, none of it makes any sense.

When you think about how good a tool religion has been at controlling a society, it starts to make more sense.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't take the Big Bang as fact, just a theory and I sure don't think Genesis is a theory, I think it is a fairy tale.

Sounds like a personal problem. If I'm wrong, oh well, I still lived a good life. If you are wrong, well....

I won't be spending eternity with the likes of you and your ilk, sounds like a win for me.

Ignorance is bliss!

How blissful you must be.

Not nearly as blissful as yourself...

hahaha. I love Corbett's thinking - its a win-win situation for him. hahaha

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: maziwanka
hahaha. I love Corbett's thinking - its a win-win situation for him. hahaha

Perhaps you have hear of Blaise Pascal?

He came to the same conclusion as Corbett:
You live as though God exists.
-If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
-If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

If you live your life as if God exists you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
If you live your life as if God does not exist you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Therefore it makes far more sense to live your life as if God exists.

Read up on Pascal's Wager to get a better understand of this whole point of view.
Pascal was a mathematician who tried to apply math to the belief of God. You may not agree with his idea, but it is certainly interesting and still debated 300+ years after it was wrote.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: maziwanka
hahaha. I love Corbett's thinking - its a win-win situation for him. hahaha

Perhaps you have hear of Blaise Pascal?

He came to the same conclusion as Corbett:
You live as though God exists.
-If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
-If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

If you live your life as if God exists you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
If you live your life as if God does not exist you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Therefore it makes far more sense to live your life as if God exists.

Read up on Pascal's Wager to get a better understand of this whole point of view.
Pascal was a mathematician who tried to apply math to the belief of God. You may not agree with his idea, but it is certainly interesting and still debated 300+ years after it was wrote.

Problem: Living as though god does not exist != being evil. If you want to say "living an evil life doing bad" then say that. But just living not believing in god is not the same as being evil.

And which god should you believe in? What if you guess wrong? Now you burn in hell.

How about this reasoning: If there is a god, and he is all knowing and all powerful, he doesn't give a crap whether or not you believe in him, just whether you are a good person or not. Faith not required for admittance to heaven. That's the only thing that makes sense if you think god is benevolent. Of course, if he's benevolent maybe he wouldn't let people be forced to kill, rape and eat their families in Darfur.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Perhaps you have hear of Blaise Pascal?

He came to the same conclusion as Corbett:
You live as though God exists.
-If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
-If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

If you live your life as if God exists you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
If you live your life as if God does not exist you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Therefore it makes far more sense to live your life as if God exists.

Read up on Pascal's Wager to get a better understand of this whole point of view.
Pascal was a mathematician who tried to apply math to the belief of God. You may not agree with his idea, but it is certainly interesting and still debated 300+ years after it was wrote.

Pascal's wager is a load of crap. It supposes that one day you weigh the pros and cons and just decide to start believing in god. Everyone knows that's not how it works. Either way, it is a self interested decision and not based upon true belief. According to Christian theology god is omniscient so you couldn't fool him into thinking your belief was genuine, so in order for this to work he would have to be okay with a duplicitous statement/behavior of belief on your part.

As Douglas Adams said, if god would really be impressed by such a pathetic display of mealy mouthed faith I'd rather not worship him anyway.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with your assumption about the latter remark (i.e., no atheist). However, IMO that position takes a great deal of "faith" as well.

Fern

There is no credible evidence to suggest there is any higher power whatsoever, so I disagree that it takes "faith" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

There is all kinds of credible evidence to suggest a higher power exists so yours is a faith that no such evidence exists. And from this faith that no such power exists comes your religion. You don't just not believe in God, you disbelieve in Him. You are sure he does not exist if you are an Atheist.

No, you are wrong, there is nothing, not a single shred of evidence that any supernatural force exists, period. I do not actively spend energy denying any feeling, I don't actively proselytize against anyone. It doesn't take faith to not believe in Santa Claus.

I can sometimes appreciate the clever word games you attempt to play, but you are no Anton Chiguhr, I'm not a gas station attendant, and no coin flip will be taking place.

Ah the old, 'you have the more convincing argument but I'm still right' a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, argument. OK, fine, you put your faith in your non-belief. There can be no shred of evidence for you.

Convincing argument of what? You state there is "all kinds of credible evidence". Perhaps you've convinced yourself of that, that doesn't make your argument convincing to others. It doesn't take faith for me to not see the divine in a piece of toast that appears to be a picture of Jesus to you.

If you want to allow everyone to live in their own universe by their own set of rules then the world will grind to a halt. There are basic tenets that we all have to agree on in order to function.

Immaculate conception. Didn't happen, cannot happen. In your universe I guess it can; I'll stick with the reality based universe.

 

[Lemon law]

As Non-Prof John Drags in----Read up on Pascal's Wager to get a better understand of this whole point of view.
Pascal was a mathematician who tried to apply math to the belief of God. You may not agree with his idea, but it is certainly interesting and still debated 300+ years after it was wrote.

Well ole Jonney also forgets Descartes attempt to mathematically prove the existence of God. But does point out the best minds in many human societies have spent thousands of years speculating about basically unknowable and untestable hypothesizes. Making religious scholarship the most studied and voluminous subject on earth.

But when one gets into studying comparative religion, we can note that basically man has created God in his own image. In the case of Christians, God has an agricultural, and
sheep heard mentality, for the Hawaiians, its an inordinate fear of volcanoes. And almost all of today's major religions origins are rooted in a history when man's technological
skills were in the yet to be invented toilet. And many of the mysterious things we now now have causes we now somewhat understand, but then were totally unexplainable by anything but a wrathful God wrecking his vengeance on the ungodly.

But now we are far more technologically mature, so the times obviously call for nuclear physicists and cosmologists to invent a new and modern religion. And the old God Loki,
the God of mischief, can be replaced by sub atomic discrete events that Einstein called God playing dice with the universe.

 

[Harvey]

"God created man in his own image; and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."

~ Mark Twain

 

[P229SAS]

Observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4JQJ-2EIDk

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: P229SAS
Observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4JQJ-2EIDk

Wow. I do get a chuckle when I know someones religion better than they do though. Seriously though, how can a person be even a semi practicing Christian and believe that "Jesus came first"?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: P229SAS
Observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4JQJ-2EIDk

BUAhahahaha!!!! Sherri Shepherd is obvioulsy dumber than a box of rocks! :laugh:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: P229SAS
Observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4JQJ-2EIDk

Wow. I do get a chuckle when I know someones religion better than they do though. Seriously though, how can a person be even a semi practicing Christian and believe that "Jesus came first"?

The same people who believes the world is about to end and those who don't agree exactly with them will instantaneously burst into flames.

It's a mental disorder.

 

[ayabe]

Going back to the original topic of this thread:

Mr. Romney states that freedom cannot exist without religion, however if he were to study history, perhaps even the history of his own faith he would realize that freedom and religion are antithetical, religion kept people from being free for thousands of years, either through arcane laws or even the divine right of kings.

Saudi Arabia today isn't free because they are shackled in religious fundamentalism and this country would have never risen to greatness without a clear separation between religion and matters of state.

 

[jonks]

Romney Spokesman Won't Say If Atheists Have Place In America
By Eric Kleefeld - December 7, 2007, 9:48AM
A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America ? the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.
***********

Plagiarizing my own post in the romney thread:

1. Romney calls for tolerance toward all religions
2. He characterizes secularism as a new religion
3. He condemns the religion of secularism

I of course disagree with the contention that secularism is a religion, and that it should be condemned.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: maziwanka
hahaha. I love Corbett's thinking - its a win-win situation for him. hahaha

Perhaps you have hear of Blaise Pascal?

He came to the same conclusion as Corbett:
You live as though God exists.
-If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
-If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
-If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

If you live your life as if God exists you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
If you live your life as if God does not exist you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Therefore it makes far more sense to live your life as if God exists.

Read up on Pascal's Wager to get a better understand of this whole point of view.
Pascal was a mathematician who tried to apply math to the belief of God. You may not agree with his idea, but it is certainly interesting and still debated 300+ years after it was wrote .

More like brought up as a last ditch effort to win an argument when all logic points the other way.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Issues of Faith should never be considered or even discussed in a Presidential election.

I don't understand the emphasis on this topic. Why do we even want to go there??

As far as Romneys statements ... I'm guessing he made those statements in part because atheists are a minority and he didn't feel he would lose anything by the implications, (If in fact he meant any).

I take it you aren't old enough to remember, or even know about, JFK and the problems he had because he was Catholic.

He also gave a speech about his faith.
I believe his key line was along the lines of:
I am not a Catholic running to be President,
I am a guy running to be President who happens to be Catholic.

Of course he made it sound much better

The whole purpose of the speech was to convince the Christian fundamentals that they should vote for him.

Contrast:
JFK: ?I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.?
Mitt:"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders ? in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty."

Huge difference!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Harvey
"God created man in his own image; and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."

~ Mark Twain

Man creates God in his own image, and God, being a gentleman, invites you to discover who your own image reall is.

Children believe that God is a million different things their childish desires create him as so the next child can laugh at that picture. The people of faith and of doubt thus contend with each other forever. Only the Lover that opens the door to his heart dies and becomes him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Romney Spokesman Won't Say If Atheists Have Place In America
By Eric Kleefeld - December 7, 2007, 9:48AM
A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America ? the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.
***********

Plagiarizing my own post in the romney thread:

1. Romney calls for tolerance toward all religions
2. He characterizes secularism as a new religion
3. He condemns the religion of secularism

I of course disagree with the contention that secularism is a religion, and that it should be condemned.

Romney is un-American and anti-Founding Fathers. I hope his drive to be President is crushed.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: P229SAS
Observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4JQJ-2EIDk

To be fair, I am hoping she is referring to John 1:1-3, 9-10:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was in the beginning with God.

3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: P229SAS
Observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4JQJ-2EIDk

To be fair, I am hoping she is referring to John 1:1-3, 9-10:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was in the beginning with God.

3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

They where clearly speaking about people on Earth and when Jesus supposedly visited those people.

I quote:
'speaking about the Greek civilization'
"They still had Christians there"
"The Greeks had Christians and they threw them to the lions"
"I don't think anything predates Christians"

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic[1] religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament[2] and prophesied in the Old Testament[3].

She didn't say nothing predates Jesus Christ or God or the Holy Trinity (to which I assume you are referring). She said nothing predates people who followed the teachings of Christ which is kind of hard to do before he actually showed up to do any "teaching".