Poll on religious tolerance

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: spidey07
Belief in God and not wanting to destroy our nation = OK with me.

No muslims, no athiests, no gays.

Thanks for reminding me why conservatives are dog shit.

thanks for reminding me that people who stereotype based on some caricature are dog shit... seems to me the whole reason for this silly thread...

Stereotype? Spidey is just articulating what most conservatives believe (but few actually have the balls to admit publicly). In a way, Spidey's position is actually admirable because he's very honest about being a bigoted piece of shit, usually either you guys are vague or toe the line as close as you can. Funny how some of you hang on to his jock strap 99% of the time, but now you guys are strangely silent. If you wanted to prove that stereotype wrong, there should be a firestorm in this thread and you guys should be on his ass right now.

And lets get the whole cat out of the bag, another 'requirement' for POTUS that you guys don't publicly say is that they need to be white.

I see the Phokusbot is still in working order.

I waited to respond to see if the conservative ATPN borg actually had any decency to condemn spidey07 and raise hell even after i pointed out what a piece of shit he was, but thank you and your scumbag ilk for proving my point.

Next time one of you douchebag conservatives try to claim MLK as one of your own with his 'i have a dream' speech or claim you want meritocracy in society or hilariously claim that conservatives aren't predisposed to being bigoted pieces of shit that you are, i'll link to this thread.

I have to tip my hat off to spidey, you're doing my job for me (thanks for the new sig material too)

I don't know why you're acting all superior - it's not like progressives have that much better a record of voting for muslims or atheists than Republicans. I can think of one acknowledged atheist in Congress (Pete Stark, D. CA) and one Muslim (Keith Ellison, D, MN).

Hell, I voted for Ellison last year.

I'm willing to bet Phokus has never voted for a Muslim. I guess that makes HIM the racist.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
There is no such thing as an atheist


Everyone has a higher power, whether its their god, money, themselves, their Xbox or whatever....

Don't be stupid.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: orakle

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I would never vote for a Muslim President. The specific reason being September 11th, 2001.

Yes, because the muslims did that to you. Right.

Also no Asian Presidents, remember Pearl Harbor.

And no Hispanic Presidents, remember the Alamo.

FAIL. Those were the Japs and Mexicans.

As if you know the difference...

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

I mean, seriously, dismissing some of the greatest minds because you didn't like their personal beliefs... It's just fucking daft. Are you really that daft?

So you'd vote for a KKK grand wizard for president then?

Comparing atheists to KKK grand wizards, are we? I'd probably spit in your face, IRL. How the fuck did you figure out how to work a computer, anyway?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
All religions threads eventually turn into pissing matches. They are collectively as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

And on this board, the most intolerant are those without religion. It's the same ole "intolerance is bad and hateful, as long as you agree with my intolerance."

you shoudl read your points, the ironing is delicious

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Any religion weighs against a candidate in my view. It shows they lack critical thinking and mental acuity. Of course I mentally transposed "president" with "prime minister of NZ".

Not really. One of the most brilliant people in biology is a Christian and he does quite well. In fact he heads the NIH. That numbnuts- what's his name? Dawkins? yeah that's it, tried to sabotage his appointment for the reason you cite, but Collins overpowers him intellectually. It was kind of funny reading someone who's comparatively not very bright trying to be critical when there was no criticism to be had about any of Collins work. Dawkins just hates him because he has religious beliefs. He really isn't very smart.

Of course there are some very, very smart people of all religious backgrounds out there, but on average religiosity negatively correlates with intelligence (the data on this is very clear). And I think calling Dawkins "[not] very smart" is terribly inaccurate considering he is a Faraday Prize winner, Kistler Prize winner, holds a doctorate of science and several honorary doctorates, is a fellow of the Royal Society, was listed by Time Magazine as a top 100 most influential person and has authored over 30 scientific publications, many of them very influential.

You may disagree with his views on theology and his methods of communicating said views, but he is a very intelligent man. Don't let your personal/emotional feelings cloud his very substantial achievements in biology and ethology.

To get back on topic, I don't think it's unfair at all for me to sway my votes against religious candidates and I don't think it's inaccurate to characterise the religious in general as lacking in critical thinking.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Any religion weighs against a candidate in my view. It shows they lack critical thinking and mental acuity. Of course I mentally transposed "president" with "prime minister of NZ".

Not really. One of the most brilliant people in biology is a Christian and he does quite well. In fact he heads the NIH. That numbnuts- what's his name? Dawkins? yeah that's it, tried to sabotage his appointment for the reason you cite, but Collins overpowers him intellectually. It was kind of funny reading someone who's comparatively not very bright trying to be critical when there was no criticism to be had about any of Collins work. Dawkins just hates him because he has religious beliefs. He really isn't very smart.

Of course there are some very, very smart people of all religious backgrounds out there, but on average religiosity negatively correlates with intelligence (the data on this is very clear). And I think calling Dawkins "[not] very smart" is terribly inaccurate considering he is a Faraday Prize winner, Kistler Prize winner, holds a doctorate of science and several honorary doctorates, is a fellow of the Royal Society, was listed by Time Magazine as a top 100 most influential person and has authored over 30 scientific publications, many of them very influential.

You may disagree with his views on theology and his methods of communicating said views, but he is a very intelligent man. Don't let your personal/emotional feelings cloud his very substantial achievements in biology and ethology.

To get back on topic, I don't think it's unfair at all for me to sway my votes against religious candidates and I don't think it's inaccurate to characterise the religious in general as lacking in critical thinking.

You pretty much cancel out all the "smart" atheists by dragging down the average.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

Why not simply assess if a person has an adherence to rationality and a love for humanity without considering whether or not they have a religious identification?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

Why not simply assess if a person has an adherence to rationality and a love for humanity without considering whether or not they have a religious identification?

That is a good question, and really, the only answer I have, which is really just my opinion, is that any theistic or supernatural belief without supporting scientific evidence is something that is not reasonable or rational, therefore, people who chose to be theists are by nature reliant on something more than reasoning for their decision making process.

That said, the reality of the situation is that everybody is influenced by their emotions weather they will admit to it or not, so nobody is purely rational/reasonable. There are many people who are Muslim/Christian/Dindu/Jewish/etc who are much more fit to be president than myself. (I would be terrible at it, I have a big mouth.)

I have a bias, I know it stereotypes people to some extent. Please also realize that this bias does not make my decisions for me. Only in extreme cases would I would only totally rule out a person over their religious beliefs (6000 year earthers, creationists, scientologists, etc), in general, weather or not a person has theistic beliefs are a small minor part of my decision making process. My "ideal" candidate would be an atheist and secular humanist. They would also of course possess strong leadership skills, be completely honest, and be extremely intelligent . Ideal candidates are in the world of the hypothetical. In reality, I'll probably never see my ideal candidate, so I'll settle for whomever I think would be the best for the country.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: JS80

I know it's hard for you as a Brit to understand this, but we see our rights to be God given, not by people. So I'm sorry if it's hard for me to accept a President who is atheist, who might go "stalinesque" on us.

No we don't. Well, dumb people do.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Any religion weighs against a candidate in my view. It shows they lack critical thinking and mental acuity. Of course I mentally transposed "president" with "prime minister of NZ".

Not really. One of the most brilliant people in biology is a Christian and he does quite well. In fact he heads the NIH. That numbnuts- what's his name? Dawkins? yeah that's it, tried to sabotage his appointment for the reason you cite, but Collins overpowers him intellectually. It was kind of funny reading someone who's comparatively not very bright trying to be critical when there was no criticism to be had about any of Collins work. Dawkins just hates him because he has religious beliefs. He really isn't very smart.

Of course there are some very, very smart people of all religious backgrounds out there, but on average religiosity negatively correlates with intelligence (the data on this is very clear). And I think calling Dawkins "[not] very smart" is terribly inaccurate considering he is a Faraday Prize winner, Kistler Prize winner, holds a doctorate of science and several honorary doctorates, is a fellow of the Royal Society, was listed by Time Magazine as a top 100 most influential person and has authored over 30 scientific publications, many of them very influential.

You may disagree with his views on theology and his methods of communicating said views, but he is a very intelligent man. Don't let your personal/emotional feelings cloud his very substantial achievements in biology and ethology.

To get back on topic, I don't think it's unfair at all for me to sway my votes against religious candidates and I don't think it's inaccurate to characterise the religious in general as lacking in critical thinking.

You pretty much cancel out all the "smart" atheists by dragging down the average.

You can say a lot of things about GodlessAstronomer, but dumb isn't one of them. He's not so bad for a Kiwi.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Any religion weighs against a candidate in my view. It shows they lack critical thinking and mental acuity. Of course I mentally transposed "president" with "prime minister of NZ".

Not really. One of the most brilliant people in biology is a Christian and he does quite well. In fact he heads the NIH. That numbnuts- what's his name? Dawkins? yeah that's it, tried to sabotage his appointment for the reason you cite, but Collins overpowers him intellectually. It was kind of funny reading someone who's comparatively not very bright trying to be critical when there was no criticism to be had about any of Collins work. Dawkins just hates him because he has religious beliefs. He really isn't very smart.

Of course there are some very, very smart people of all religious backgrounds out there, but on average religiosity negatively correlates with intelligence (the data on this is very clear). And I think calling Dawkins "[not] very smart" is terribly inaccurate considering he is a Faraday Prize winner, Kistler Prize winner, holds a doctorate of science and several honorary doctorates, is a fellow of the Royal Society, was listed by Time Magazine as a top 100 most influential person and has authored over 30 scientific publications, many of them very influential.

You may disagree with his views on theology and his methods of communicating said views, but he is a very intelligent man. Don't let your personal/emotional feelings cloud his very substantial achievements in biology and ethology.

To get back on topic, I don't think it's unfair at all for me to sway my votes against religious candidates and I don't think it's inaccurate to characterise the religious in general as lacking in critical thinking.

Dawkins doesn't research, he pontificates. He communicates, he doesn't discover. He criticizes those who produce without having produced. Yet, he decides that he possesses the metric by which he can judge Collins.

Does that seem very intelligent to you?

 

[LunarRay]

Back in '60 JFK had to battle past the faith he ummmmm defined as his, Catholic. Essentially any of the States that were (I think it was Baptist) of a Protestant majority questioned his separation between the Vatican and the USA. He made quite a few speeches which included this but had Three that dealt solely with that topic. Folks really did think the Pope was going to take up residence in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.


I do think it is a factor IF and only IF that person has shown he/she has or will place their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible, Or what ever their faith document is.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Any religion weighs against a candidate in my view. It shows they lack critical thinking and mental acuity. Of course I mentally transposed "president" with "prime minister of NZ".

Not really. One of the most brilliant people in biology is a Christian and he does quite well. In fact he heads the NIH. That numbnuts- what's his name? Dawkins? yeah that's it, tried to sabotage his appointment for the reason you cite, but Collins overpowers him intellectually. It was kind of funny reading someone who's comparatively not very bright trying to be critical when there was no criticism to be had about any of Collins work. Dawkins just hates him because he has religious beliefs. He really isn't very smart.

Of course there are some very, very smart people of all religious backgrounds out there, but on average religiosity negatively correlates with intelligence (the data on this is very clear). And I think calling Dawkins "[not] very smart" is terribly inaccurate considering he is a Faraday Prize winner, Kistler Prize winner, holds a doctorate of science and several honorary doctorates, is a fellow of the Royal Society, was listed by Time Magazine as a top 100 most influential person and has authored over 30 scientific publications, many of them very influential.

You may disagree with his views on theology and his methods of communicating said views, but he is a very intelligent man. Don't let your personal/emotional feelings cloud his very substantial achievements in biology and ethology.

To get back on topic, I don't think it's unfair at all for me to sway my votes against religious candidates and I don't think it's inaccurate to characterise the religious in general as lacking in critical thinking.

Dawkins doesn't research, he pontificates. He communicates, he doesn't discover. He criticizes those who produce without having produced. Yet, he decides that he possesses the metric by which he can judge Collins.

Does that seem very intelligent to you?

Is this the same Dawkins who was into the Anti-war stuff at Berkeley back in like '68/'69 ish. Seems like it might be. He was very much into atheistic stuff. Think I recall he was from Africa somewhere.
Assuming this is him, I remember the attitude. I think he must have been bright in his field but also arrogant about everything else.
This fellow would inquire about one's faith prior to answering a question even where he often set up his speaker's box to opine on the war. IF you were for it you must be a Christian and no Christian should opine on anything because their view would be skewed, was his theme, as I recall.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

You want your leader to rely on nothing but reason, eh? No empathy, compassion, mercy, sense of justice?

Statements like yours demonstrate very well the difference between reason and wisdom, and how one can both be rational and a fool.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

You want your leader to rely on nothing but reason, eh? No empathy, compassion, mercy, sense of justice?

Statements like yours demonstrate very well the difference between reason and wisdom, and how one can both be rational and a fool.

BurnItDwn was talking about supernatural religious belief. "empathy, compassion, mercy, sense of justice" are values that can and do exist outside of fantasy religious supernatural ideas in our modern day world.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Was the last PM i voted for Christian, atheist, gay or Muslim.

I don't know, we don't concern ourselves with ridiculous bullsheit like that, we let them present their politics and vote based on that.

Gordon Brown was NOT voted into office though and i will never stand behind his shady corrupt politics, nor did i support Blair any more than i had to at the time.

We will change our politics in a way that most of the EU and certainly the US will have a problem with on our next election. That is for sure.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

You want your leader to rely on nothing but reason, eh? No empathy, compassion, mercy, sense of justice?

Statements like yours demonstrate very well the difference between reason and wisdom, and how one can both be rational and a fool.

Obviously you don't understand that no human being can escape empathy (and compassion stems from empathy) and that all of what you wrote are actually part of a reasoned decision making.

Religions just complicates things, because it removes wisdom and logical thinking from the decision making and instead of looking at logic and truth, you are looking at delusion and ignorance.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

You want your leader to rely on nothing but reason, eh? No empathy, compassion, mercy, sense of justice?

Statements like yours demonstrate very well the difference between reason and wisdom, and how one can both be rational and a fool.

Obviously you don't understand that no human being can escape empathy (and compassion stems from empathy) and that all of what you wrote are actually part of a reasoned decision making.

Religions just complicates things, because it removes wisdom and logical thinking from the decision making and instead of looking at logic and truth, you are looking at delusion and ignorance.

I disagree, atheism and logic don't naturally lead to better results and sometimes those "complicating" religious impulses are the proper ones. Eugenics was a horrible, evil idea; led by a noted atheist (Margaret Sanger) and supported by many "rational" thinkers of the day while its leading opponent (G.K. Chesterton) was a noted Christian apologist. Throughout history neither atheists nor religious have cornered the market on either the murderous or saintly, and it's hardly logical to believe a priori that a non-religious would be a preferrable leader.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

Srsly? After you just said this?

Originally posted by: spidey07
Belief in God and not wanting to destroy our nation = OK with me.

No muslims, no athiests, no gays.

How f'ing stupid are you?!? Obviously you don't understand english sufficiently to be posting on the internets. You're clearly as bigoted as they come.

 

[piasabird]

I think we have one now.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

People who have "faith" in the supernatural will often be guided by their faith rather than by reasoning. I do not believe it's in anyone's best interests for the powerful person in the world to rely on anything other than reason. Also, the reason why I would like to see a Sucular Humanist is because I think a strong passion for reason and for humanity are two of the most important qualifications for any position of authority.

Now, there are certainly theists who have this same adherence to rationality and love for humanity. So I certainly have voted for, and would vote again for theists. But, I have a bias, and I have my reasons for having a bias.

You want your leader to rely on nothing but reason, eh? No empathy, compassion, mercy, sense of justice?

Statements like yours demonstrate very well the difference between reason and wisdom, and how one can both be rational and a fool.

Obviously you don't understand that no human being can escape empathy (and compassion stems from empathy) and that all of what you wrote are actually part of a reasoned decision making.

Religions just complicates things, because it removes wisdom and logical thinking from the decision making and instead of looking at logic and truth, you are looking at delusion and ignorance.

I disagree, atheism and logic don't naturally lead to better results and sometimes those "complicating" religious impulses are the proper ones. Eugenics was a horrible, evil idea; led by a noted atheist (Margaret Sanger) and supported by many "rational" thinkers of the day while its leading opponent (G.K. Chesterton) was a noted Christian apologist. Throughout history neither atheists nor religious have cornered the market on either the murderous or saintly, and it's hardly logical to believe a priori that a non-religious would be a preferrable leader.

My point wasn't that atheism definently leads to more logical ideas, my point was that we are (well, most of us) already equipped with the logic and wisdom through empathy (which is an evolutionary trait) so we don't need external influences through religion, rather religion preaches separate morality for separate groups.

You are talking about extremes in history, i'm just trying to make one single point here, that religion may obscure true human empathy which is the ONLY thing a leader should use to make decisions about morality.

Everyone is equal, no one excluded (well those who hurt others obviously are but that has to do with justice, not morality) and i think that such judgements might be hard to make when you know that by your own religion, you're one notch higher on the morality list.

Am i making any sense with this? You don't have to agree, i just wonder if you are understanding what i am saying.

Is Gordon Brown an Atheist or a Christian, feel free to ask any Englishman and he could not tell you, you know why? It's unimportant.

 

[LunarRay]

posted in wrong thread, sorry

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Theistic religions may have some negative impact on my decision. For instance, I would never vote for anybody who admitted to being a creationist, because I believe we really need a more rational thinker for a president.


If there was a Secular Humanist Atheist running, then there would be no possible negative impact based upon religion. But that's about it.

100% win.

And 100% bigotry.

Srsly? After you just said this?

Originally posted by: spidey07
Belief in God and not wanting to destroy our nation = OK with me.

No muslims, no athiests, no gays.

How f'ing stupid are you?!? Obviously you don't understand english sufficiently to be posting on the internets. You're clearly as bigoted as they come.

Well, i'm sorry but i can't answer that, my stupidometer (third one in a row, first one was during Powells speech at the UN, the second when Kouric interviewed Palin) blew up completely.

I'm not getting a new one so i'm sorry, i can't answer this question.