Atheism is NOT a Religion - Accept this, move on.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
To address the point you responded to, an atheist president would likely be the best thing for this country

Why? Apart from the fact that he'd agree with you, what does a simple non-belief in God add to a person that makes them the "best thing for this country"?

I would agree that an overly theistic person, who honestly believes that God is telling them what to do, would not be a candidate that I would elect president, but I don't see religion playing much more than a superficial part in the governance of this country. Lip service to the Christians, to be sure, but an agenda that actually addresses Christian beliefs? Hardly.

If being an atheist is all you need to support someone for political office, do you fault all of the nitwits who will vote for Sarah Palin simply because she's "God fearing"? Or the Mormons who will vote for Romney, for no other reason than they are of the same religion. Unqualified candidates (at least in Palin's case, the jury's still out on Romney) who collect votes by pandering to those whose beliefs steer them to see the government through the myopic lens of "If they believe what I believe, they are the best thing for this country."

reply to post by adjensen


Presumably because presidents, or in my case prime ministers, who are deeply religious would be less likely to fund research into science for example in such areas as stem cell research

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
To address the point you responded to, an atheist president would likely be the best thing for this country

Why? Apart from the fact that he'd agree with you, what does a simple non-belief in God add to a person that makes them the "best thing for this country"?

I would agree that an overly theistic person, who honestly believes that God is telling them what to do, would not be a candidate that I would elect president, but I don't see religion playing much more than a superficial part in the governance of this country. Lip service to the Christians, to be sure, but an agenda that actually addresses Christian beliefs? Hardly.

If being an atheist is all you need to support someone for political office, do you fault all of the nitwits who will vote for Sarah Palin simply because she's "God fearing"? Or the Mormons who will vote for Romney, for no other reason than they are of the same religion. Unqualified candidates (at least in Palin's case, the jury's still out on Romney) who collect votes by pandering to those whose beliefs steer them to see the government through the myopic lens of "If they believe what I believe, they are the best thing for this country."

Simply being an atheist is not the only datapoint I would consider in voting for a candidate. I would consider it beneficial to the country because they are free of religious superstition and it's also likely that he/she would be a skeptic. Much benefit could be derived from such a viewpoint if at very least it was, for example, not caving to religious lobbies or participating in wars that may have religious influence or benefits. I operate on the practical benefits of being an atheist, not the motivation that they're simply of like mind as myself.

And, in short, if the candidate were an atheist and had a bunch of terrible policy platforms I couldn't overlook them all just because I wanted an atheist in office.

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by adjensen

 

Presumably because presidents, or in my case prime ministers, who are deeply religious would be less likely to fund research into science for example in such areas as stem cell research

And how does that make them "the best thing for this country"? We've already spent ourselves into near insolvency, do you think that there's money just sitting out there to fund "science" that is waiting on an atheist to approve of it?

I presume that the leaders of China are atheists, how much are they spending on stem cell research? Why not let them carry the torch?

Again, "the best thing for the country" is a bold statement, purely on the basis of someone not believing in God being the sole criteria for making them so. Claiming that they'd spend money that doesn't exist on something that may or may not be of benefit to some subset of the population is hardly a qualification.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Much benefit could be derived from such a viewpoint if at very least it was, for example, not caving to religious lobbies or participating in wars that may have religious influence or benefits.

What's the last war that the United States participated in that had religious influence or benefits? A war that we wouldn't have gotten into otherwise?

Lobbyists don't target the President (not effectively, anyway,) because it is Congress and the Judiciary that holds the real power in the country, as regards legislation and enforcement. They do lobby the Executive branch, though, (current policy here) so you'd either have to have everyone on the staff be atheists, or specify that religious lobbyists (and only religious lobbyists) are banned, which seems pretty obviously wrong.

Even so, what out there can you point to as something seriously detrimental that can be attributed to religious lobbying?

I'd agree with the war one, if it had any relevance, but it seems like your complaint about lobbyists would be to single out believers as undeserving the same voice as corporations, environmental groups, or any other group of like minded people. That seems rather intolerant, doesn't it?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Much benefit could be derived from such a viewpoint if at very least it was, for example, not caving to religious lobbies or participating in wars that may have religious influence or benefits.

What's the last war that the United States participated in that had religious influence or benefits? A war that we wouldn't have gotten into otherwise?

The current Iraq War. Bush admitted to it, Rumsfeld distributed literature littered with bible phrases to the military. I can fetch links if necessary though it'll be a while.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
To address the point you responded to, an atheist president would likely be the best thing for this country even though at this point in history it's extremely unlikely one could be elected.

If only.

I hope I live to see the day.

It is possible that Obama could be an atheist. However, he does kowtow to various religions as well as claim to be a christian, so in his case it wouldn't matter much.

Sadly - - currently you don't have much choice.

You have to get elected first - - before you can affect change. AND until we are truly a secular country - - religions have power in politics.

But I would sure welcome it.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Much benefit could be derived from such a viewpoint if at very least it was, for example, not caving to religious lobbies or participating in wars that may have religious influence or benefits.

What's the last war that the United States participated in that had religious influence or benefits? A war that we wouldn't have gotten into otherwise?

The current Iraq War. Bush admitted to it, Rumsfeld distributed literature littered with bible phrases to the military. I can fetch links if necessary though it'll be a while.

Gee, that's surprising to hear. Particularly as only Congress is authorized to declare war. Or that said resultion fails to mention religion at all. Were all those other reasons (most of which are rubbish, in my opinion) simply cover for a "Christians beat on Muslims" campaign?

Seems like at least one atheist thought it was a good idea:

We are not adverse critics of President Bush’s decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But we think the intervention should have ended when the tyrant was gone. We don’t believe that Iraq (any more than Afghanistan) can be transformed into a liberal democracy.
Source

Did George Bush think that God thought that this was a good idea? Maybe. Would he have done it, regardless? Almost certainly. Iraq was more about resources, opportunity and finishing up his Daddy's work than anything else.

Again, a war that had religious influence or benefits that we wouldn't have gotten into otherwise?

reply to post by The Revenant


Sorry to burst your bubble but any belief is a faith based belief and there for falls into religion.

But hey the courts say so also.


www.scribd.com...
Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court

For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y.
Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend
religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own
beliefs.

www.wnd.com...
August 5, 2005
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

These are precedents which is how the courts decide to act on future judgments.

Unlike the ruling to remove school prayer which had no precedents and is not back by the Founding Fathers who did believe in God.

America's Godly Heritage: Wallbuilders
1995NR 56 minutes

America's Founding Fathers and their views on Christianity and public policy are examined in this video. The beliefs of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and other founding fathers concerning the role of Christian principles in education and government are presented, accompanied by historical American artwork. Also included are court case excerpts (spanning 160 years) in which Christian principles are tied to public policy.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
To address the point you responded to, an atheist president would likely be the best thing for this country even though at this point in history it's extremely unlikely one could be elected.

actually the best type of president in any time period would be for a president who just simply keeps it to themselves, in other words a future president can be observed going to church or not going to church either way, and photos should be taken just as they are when the president is out jogging ect... But I still do not believe a good president would come from such a small minority group and that is 8% worldwide including China with their mass population everything. would be curious to see the numbers reflected for just America on this subject.

I believe we are going off topic with the politics and that should be reserved for another section, but there is one thing I like to point out because I notice this...

It would seem alot of Atheism proponents having the majority of youtube videos on the subject might quite well have made a really big mistake producing film and partaking in lectures about it, I just don't get why Islam is running through their streets "in mass hoards" screaming kafir... I have no idea if the majority of UK is atheists or not but just by watching these videos, I like others are guilty of assuming the whole of the nation is just as their videos state. I have never seen anything like the videos coming out of Britain here in the streets of the nations capitol.

*language warning*
www.youtube.com...

not in my backyard !

I was searching for what UK have established in comparison to our Supreme Court rulings ?

I am also wondering why when I do a Google search with this string (Atheism+British Law) all I get is links and video about Britons fearing Sharia Law !

"stand for something or fall for anything"

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."
Alexander Hamilton

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."
Malcolm X

Originally posted by adjensen
Gee, that's surprising to hear. Particularly as only Congress is authorized to declare war.

Exactly when was a war declared?

Bush did say this was a Crusade - - and mentions of God at various times.

(I forget his exact wordings - - but he did make statements to the effect this is a God war)

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adjensen
Gee, that's surprising to hear. Particularly as only Congress is authorized to declare war.

Exactly when was a war declared?

Um... looks to be October 2002, why?

Bush did say this was a Crusade - - and mentions of God at various times.

Who cares? Did we invade Iraq for religious reasons? Did the Congress authorize military action against Iraq to further Christianity?

I don't get your arguments. If a Christian, say, George Bush, does something you don't like, it's because he's a Christian. If an atheist, say, Josef Stalin, does something you don't like, it can't have anything to do with the fact that he's an atheist.

If a Christian said that a rabid theist would be "the best thing for the country", simply because they were a rabid theist, you'd jump on that, but when TD says that an atheist would be "the best thing for the country", you're quick to agree.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by adjensen
Did we invade Iraq for religious reasons?

Honestly - - I have no idea why we invaded Iraq.

Originally posted by adjensen
Gee, that's surprising to hear.

I suppose it is since most of what we know about the reasons for this war is through the rhetoric of the left or right political factions. I'm not in a good position to dig up the links at the moment but I suppose I'll have to in order to support my statements. I believe I began a thread here on Bush confessing his shocking religious reasons for beginning to wage war.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


The idea that God is Love is a fallacious redefining of the word love. We already have the word for love, that word is LOVE.

This is a similar fallacy to those that want to say the entire Universe is God (I used to say this when I was a pantheist) they are arbitrarily renaming or redefining something we already have a name for.

reply to post by The Revenant


You forgot to list that Atheists don't even get the meaning of their Greek name right. So I take their metaphysical claims with a grain of salt ...

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god".

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by AllIsOne
You forgot to list that Atheists don't even get the meaning of their Greek name right. So I take their metaphysical claims with a grain of salt ...

The etymology of the word is of little use in the context in which it's currently used. Atheism today means, in short, not believing in god(s).

Also, what metaphysical claims does atheism make? None as far as I can see.

reply to post by adjensen


www.alternet.org...:_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins% 22/

Conveniently, this article not only details Bush's religious fanaticism as a strong motivator for the Iraq war, but also references the top-secret memos distributed to the military by Rumsfeld that included material from the bible.

Here's another
boingboing.net...

and another
www.dubaiforums.com...

and another
www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by The Revenant

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but any belief is a faith based belief and there for falls into religion.

But hey the courts say so also.

Arrogant American.

Your courts hold everyone in the world to account do they? Jurisdiction over everyone have they? I don't think so. Get your head out of the sand and breathe real air.

Finally, "any belief is a faith based belief?" - Opinion? Or your stated fact? How fascist of you to think that everyone must follow your lead.

Goodbye, you are the weakest link.

The Revenant.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Conveniently, this article not only details Bush's religious fanaticism as a strong motivator for the Iraq war, but also references the top-secret memos distributed to the military by Rumsfeld that included material from the bible.

Thanks for the links. I'm trying to find something that isn't left wing or anti-American as far as an original source, but it all seems a bit circuitous. It doesn't seem particularly credible that Bush would attempt to use Biblical prophecy as the sole basis of convincing the French president that he should join in the invasion (and somewhat more credible that Chirac would say something disparaging about Bush, whether true or not, given the popularity and notoriety that he received for his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.)

Even that is a third party statement, though -- an author says that Chirac said that Bush said... Barring an official statement of some sort, or confirmation by an independent and non-biased source, I'd question the validity, or at least the true merit, of it. Taking left wing media's word for something about George Bush is like asking Fox News for the truth about Obama's birth certificate

And Rumsfeld was attempting to sway his boss to see things his way? How is that a revelation?

Be that as it may, none of that shows that Congress believed it was a religious war, nor did the American public (not generally, anyway) and you've yet to show that we would not have gone to war for some other reason -- to the contrary, it seems like they had lots of reasons (relevant or not) none of which were religious in nature.

But the deeper question seems to be this -- leaders must believe that they are right in what they decide. That the course of action is the correct one. You're accusing Bush of using the Bible as his measuring stick, and saying that an atheist would not, making them "the best thing for the country." But they'd still have to figure out what's right and wrong, correct? They'd still have to have an opinion. It just would come from some source that is not related to faith.

Your beef with George Bush (while ignoring every other theistic president we've had) is that he seems to find his "right" in a book you disagree with, so, as I originally said, your only basis for saying that an atheist would be "the best thing for the country" is because they agree with you on one single point -- disbelief in God. That is no qualification for office, much less the supreme qualification that makes them "best".

Judge people by who they are, what they do, and what they say, not on the basis of some singular aspect of their character.