Forum
What would you think about an openly atheist presidential/congressional candidate?
|
fcuku_ wrote
at 11:54 AM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST
Because we do not have a single representative that is openly atheist/agnostic. Which is baffling considering that (and I'm pulling numbers out of my ass here) I would guess that about 1 in 7 people in the US identify as one of those diety-less belief systems. I do not see why anyone could be so openly opposed to one of their representatives being atheist, or why a rep would be afraid to come public with something like this. Your thoughts?
So I guess the question we can use as a springboard: why would being an atheist/agnostic be so detrimental to the decision making process in the US? |
|
deadcode wrote
at 2:19 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST Yeah you are right, Shevar, Aristotle was first. However I think these ideas have been lost for a while; and are starting to make a resurgence. So yes; you are right the ideas are very old; so I guess what I mean; is that they are making a comeback.
|
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 2:34 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST All the founding fathers were deists and their personal philosophies which were not influenced by religious dogma ultimately resulted in our constitution and bill of rights.
If you're referring to the constant fluctuation in national piety then that's a different subject entirely. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 2:42 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST That leaders have authority established by God does not mean that they always carry out God's will. They are accountable directly to God, not to the Church.
If a leader interferes with other channels of authority established by God, such as the Church, a believer may resist the leader on grounds of conscience, but should be willing to accept the punishment that the leader metes out in return. |
|
Thraxle wrote
at 2:43 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST This thread is about 2 questions away from a full-blown religious discussion.
YIKES! |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 2:45 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST Yeah I'm getting out of here; and leaving this God stuff to all you believers. Have fun :p
|
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 2:48 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST @SecretVeta wrote:
"Agnostic implies you are not a gnostic i.e. you are without esoteric knowledge or dismiss the belief that esoteric knowledge is necessary to religion. I would argue that theism especially monotheism is inherently a gnostic pretense making anyone who is truly agnostic also atheist. Although you could be atheist and gnostic." You second paragraph contains an assumption with no real argument. One of the many reasons people often find you abrasive and some would even say ignorant. You fail to connect monotheism to agnosticism. |
|
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 2:51 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST Also skrums view is incredibly obnoxious to most agnostics and atheists since it requires faith that the Bible, Torah, Koran etc... are actually the word of God and not of man.
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 2:59 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST Why should it be obnoxious? It is predicated on the truth of Romans 13:1. If another religion does not have the equivalent of Romans 13:1, the believers in that religion do not have to accept the idea that they must submit to the ruling authorities. Atheists, who do not accept the authority of Romans 13:1, do not have to accept the idea that they must submit to the ruling authorities.
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 3:04 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST DONT GO DOWN THAT PATH SAM. NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo
the annoying thing about the situation (imo), chase, is that most of the people who are running for pres and trumpeting their religion... are honestly just straight chatpwning the insanely shallow bible belt. very similar reasons that people running always champion their service in the military. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 3:06 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST skrum, his point is that Romans 13:1 comes from the Bible, which to a non-believer is a useless book with dogmatic writings of men, since God never existed.
|
