Another thread to bash religion

[verzen]

Okay the title is somewhat misleading.

But I want someone to explain something to me.
With politics coming up, many individual's want a christian president. In fact, if the presidential candidate was NOT christian, they would not vote them in to office because the majority of American's want someone who shares their ideals and beliefs.
However, if a president were an athiest and shared all the beliefs of say, 70% of American's, he wouldn't be voted in if the christian, who shared 30% of the beliefs of American's who was also running.
Now it brings into question the morality of following a religion where you are accomplishing the GOALS for god rather than accomplishing the goals that you yourself know are right.

Would you rather follow a leader who is an athiest, but does what he knows is best for the country, or a christian who does what he thinks god wants him to do for the country?[/u]

[mitchellmckain]

But I want someone to explain something to me.
With politics coming up, many individual's want a christian president. In fact, if the presidential candidate was NOT christian, they would not vote them in to office because the majority of American's want someone who shares their ideals and beliefs.

I agree that this is the case and I find this really stupid and disgusting. This makes me quite certain that the anti-christ (if you believe in such things) would also claim to be Chritian and these idioticly self-righteous Christians would vote the guy into power with all the mindless lack of hesitation that they have shown in voting for many candidates.

It reminds me of one of my favorite movies: Contact, where a scientist is disqualified from an important mission because she does not profess a belief in God. pretty infantile!

Now it brings into question the morality of following a religion where you are accomplishing the GOALS for god rather than accomplishing the goals that you yourself know are right.

Impossible. The worst that you can encounter is someone arguing that YOU should be "accomplishing the GOALS for god rather than accomplishing the goals that you yourself know are right", for I am certain that it is NEVER the case that a person is actually "accomplishing the GOALS for god rather than accomplishing the goals that" they themselves know are right.

People will certainly try to manipulate you (using everything imaginable) to act against your conscience but no one actually believes that they are doing the work of God against their own conscience, for what God wants them to do must be what is right and so the first thing that they will do is to adjust their own conscience to line up with what they believe is the right thing to do. One or the other has to go: either the belief that God wants you to do it, or the belief that it is wrong.

Would you rather follow a leader who is an athiest, but does what he knows is best for the country, or a christian who does what he thinks god wants him to do for the country?[/u]

I see nothing to distinguish between these two, even if I take as a given that I know such things. But it is of course impossible to know any such thing. All we know is what they say they are and how they do things. So if I take this instead as how these two have described themselves then I would be more inclided to believe the atheist for only honesty could motivate such a declaration.

However ultimately it comes down to the fact that I will follow the leader who supports what I know to be the correct way of doing things. In this case that is not McCain. Long ago before the beginning of the race I ruled out this NRA candidate immediately, and my opinion of the guy has only declined. I was skeptical of Obama to begin with but he has been winning my confidence. Oh and McCain's running mate makes me nauseous - a rabid pro-life fanatic is practically a fascist according to my thinking.

[kkawohl]

Would you rather follow a leader who is an athiest, but does what he knows is best for the country, or a christian who does what he thinks god wants him to do for the country?[/u]

It's a matter of correctness...an atheist is delusional to the truth in the same way a religious fanatic is...neither would make a good president...an agnostic would be a better choice.

[verzen]

It's not impossible. Have you ever heard someone say, "Of course I believe in god, I don't want to go to hell!"
They believe in god in order to not go to hell

Or how about
"Of course I don't believe in murder or stealing. Doing those things are against gods wishes and he will punish me if I do them.

as compared to
"I don't murder or steal because 'I' believe it's wrong to end someones life or to steal things from other people"

Who are you more inclined to want to trust?
The religious don't do bad things to please their god
The moral person don't do bad things to please themselves.

[Harold14370]

All right now, be honest. Would you rather vote for an atheist than a Christian? If so, you are no different. So, shut up.

[verzen]

If the athiest was against stem cell research and many other things that I wouldn't agree with, then no, I would vote for the christian if the christian was for stem cell research and the like.

[kkawohl]

Decisions are based on selfishness.

[Harold14370]

If the athiest was against stem cell research and many other things that I wouldn't agree with, then no, I would vote for the christian if the christian was for stem cell research and the like.

Stem cells, huh? That is nothing but a wedge issue that one side uses to beat the other over the head with. You would think it was the be-all and end-all of medical science.

[verzen]

It was an example of a controversial issue. Maybe you need to re-examine your ability to think. You know, some people use examples to explain things to people like you.

Please, don't insult me.

[mitchellmckain]

All right now, be honest. Would you rather vote for an atheist than a Christian? If so, you are no different. So, shut up.

Well of course I would prefer someone who agrees with me on everything. LOL And that includes a belief in Christianity as i understand it. However lets try for a smidgin of realism here because I am rather far from the typical Christian and the reality is that I will vote the opposite of what most Christians will vote in the next U.S. election. I will vote Obama and I have not the slightest idea whether he is Christian nor do I even care enough to attempt an internet search on the question.

Does that satisfy your demand for honesty?

Decisions are based on selfishness.

I would certainly agree that most peoples decisions are selfish most of the time. The absolute nature of your statement suggest that this is absolutely true of the one person that you know best and since you are the expert on that person I would certainly not argue with the veracity of that statement in your case. But my experience and observations are different, and so I deny that this statement is true in any absolute sense -- and that is EVEN when I restrict the statement to human beings.

[kkawohl]

Decisions are based on selfishness.

I would certainly agree that most peoples decisions are selfish most of the time....I deny that this statement is true in any absolute sense -- and that is EVEN when I restrict the statement to human beings.

You are right of course...many decisions are based on selfishness.

[Cosmo]

Okay the title is somewhat misleading.

But I want someone to explain something to me.
With politics coming up, many individual's want a christian president. In fact, if the presidential candidate was NOT christian, they would not vote them in to office because the majority of American's want someone who shares their ideals and beliefs.
However, if a president were an athiest and shared all the beliefs of say, 70% of American's, he wouldn't be voted in if the christian, who shared 30% of the beliefs of American's who was also running.
Now it brings into question the morality of following a religion where you are accomplishing the GOALS for god rather than accomplishing the goals that you yourself know are right.

Would you rather follow a leader who is an athiest, but does what he knows is best for the country, or a christian who does what he thinks god wants him to do for the country?[/u]

Verzen
Would I be bashing religion because I believe the crucifix and crosses are evil?
These artifacts are what represents the dominant Christian philosophy.

This artifact is symbolic of the Roman church and to me, I consider these people to be followers of Pontius Pilate since he was the one that crucified Christ.

So on these grounds, I refute this religion because I think of Christ as a Preacher/Reformer, rather than a sacrificial lamb as the RC promotes this religion.

So because of this, I look to our US Constitution that outlaws this cruel method of punishment.
Our C'n with ALL its Amendments, also outlaws sexism and racism that the OT promotes.

So to me , it is the best source of having any religious beliefs.
But to allow freedom of beliefs, it has to 'separate the religions from politics' and so that is a necessity, because it allows individuals to adopt their own way of thinking .

So, in conclusion, I would not vote for any politician that promotes a religion to run for office.

Cosmo

.

[(Q)]

Well of course I would prefer someone who agrees with me on everything. LOL And that includes a belief in Christianity as i understand it.

Christianity is much like a fingerprint, then. No two versions are ever the same?

However lets try for a smidgin of realism here because I am rather far from the typical Christian and the reality is...

And not only are no two versions alike, Christianity can span and encapsulate breathtaking heights and depths of parameters and intricacies contrived to withstand any and all contenders who would question the fantastic and the mystical.

Does that satisfy your demand for honesty?

It does indeed, many thanks!

[mitchellmckain]

Christianity is much like a fingerprint, then. No two versions are ever the same?

And not only are no two versions alike, Christianity can span and encapsulate breathtaking heights and depths of parameters and intricacies contrived to withstand any and all contenders who would question the fantastic and the mystical.

Sorry but what you mean here is a little ambiguous, because the thing about a fingerprint is that each person is unique in that aspect and thus can be identified by their particular version. In that respect I am not sure I would agree.

The human mind is certainly has the potential for infinite variety and I think it is a pretty good rule that the way people think is quite unique, but not everyone lives up to their potential and so I cannot say that this is always and absolutely true. And that is just in regards to the human mind in general. Certainly those who are creative and actively engage with Christianity think about what it means are quite likely to have a very unique perspective and approach to it. And yet there is also the tendency in Christianity towards calcification in dead institutional forms and certainly a feeling that some produce carbon copy Christians - though it is possible that this is only a superficial impression.

In any case, Christianity like any philosophical approach to life in general is highly likely to be as unique as the lives of the people that adopt these philosophies.

But I must say Q that your appreciation of this aspect of Christianity is surprising. It would seem far more consistent with your usual characterization of Christianity as a product of indoctrination (or brainwashing), would be as something which produces carbon copy ideologues with no capacity to think outside their prescribed limits.

A book (series actually) that might provide an interesting comparison if you like sci fi, begins with "A Call to Arms (book one of the damned)" by Alan Dean Foster.


PS. The word "infinite" above is not used in an absolute sense but when you get numbers that exceed the number of particles in the universe, which possible combinations and permutations easily and often do, then the number of actual instances (human beings in this case) cannot possible ever approach such numbers and thus you have what is infinite to all practical purposes (perhaps we could call this a virtual infinity).

[mobc]

i would most likely vote for the atheist, because this person is more focused on the problems with the government, rather than with their own faith. but my vote also depends on the key topics that this person believes in (political, not religious) of course.