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

Originally posted by The Revenant

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.

ACTS 2:38 is wrong on several fronts. Beliefs can be based on knowledge, not faith. Also, even faith based beliefs, such as bigfoot, do not qualify in any way as a religion.

And the biggest mistake of all is suggesting that disbelief is a belief.

reply to post by adjensen


Unbelievable!

Just one question. Why did we invade Iraq?

And NO Atheism is not a religion. Its a lack of unproven belief.

Originally posted by adjensen
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 --

Fair point: it is hearsay and originates from a possibly biased media. Though I haven't seen it refuted.

And true, it wasn't presented to Congress (or the U.N. for that matter) as a religious war. So what? It didn't need to be as there were other reasons to present a case for war. Rumsfeld saw biblical ties for sure and Bush reportedly did.

In any case we have a secretary of defense confirmed to be using biblical influences on the military in top-secret memos as well as reports of a president who reportedly tried to influence the participation of France in a war that Bush believed was related to Gog and Magog from the bible. Religious reasoning for wars is unlikely to occur with an atheist president.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by adjensen

 

Unbelievable!

What's unbelievable?

In thread after thread, you seem to have a real problem with people who disagree with you that have rational reasons for doing so. Instead of getting all snippy about it, why not try to empathize with why they might feel differently?

Just one question. Why did we invade Iraq?

How should I know? As I posted earlier, the most likely reasons were for resources, taking advantage of the opportunity at the time, and Bush wanting to finish up what his Daddy left in the first Gulf War. But I was not in the Bush administration or in Congress, so I don't know.

Personally, I thought it was a stupid decision at the time, and still do. But I see no evidence that it was a religious war that would not have been undertaken otherwise. If you have such evidence, present it.

And NO Atheism is not a religion. Its a lack of unproven belief.

Um... go back to page one or so. I concurred that it is not a religion.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Religious reasoning for wars is unlikely to occur with an atheist president.

Absolutely true. But other reasoning for wars would occur, because the root issue is war, not religion. Atheists have not shown themselves immune to the trappings of nationalism, racism, the need for resources, personal power and ambition, and so forth, so to claim that their rule would be any different, simply because they don't believe in God, seems a bit of a stretch.

Look on the bright side, though -- I'm also, in effect, saying that it wouldn't be worse and you'd struggle to find many Christians who would admit to that

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Religious reasoning for wars is unlikely to occur with an atheist president.

Absolutely true. But other reasoning for wars would occur, because the root issue is war, not religion. Atheists have not shown themselves immune to the trappings of nationalism, racism, the need for resources, personal power and ambition, and so forth, so to claim that their rule would be any different, simply because they don't believe in God, seems a bit of a stretch.

I made no such claims whatsoever. I specifically claimed they were unlikely to be participating in wars that may have religious influence or benefits. Along with a few other things but we needed to clarify that point: I made no claim that atheist presidents weren't going to participate in wars at all.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by adjensen

 

Unbelievable!

What's unbelievable?

In thread after thread, you seem to have a real problem with people who disagree with you that have rational reasons for doing so. Instead of getting all snippy about it, why not try to empathize with why they might feel differently?

No - I have a problem with Left and Right - - - rather then independent thought.

Those who can't accept something said because they feel it is media Left or Right.

Especially if you are on ATS. All this stuff has been discussed on ATS from every side imaginable.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Religious reasoning for wars is unlikely to occur with an atheist president.

Absolutely true. But other reasoning for wars would occur, because the root issue is war, not religion. Atheists have not shown themselves immune to the trappings of nationalism, racism, the need for resources, personal power and ambition, and so forth, so to claim that their rule would be any different, simply because they don't believe in God, seems a bit of a stretch.

I made no such claims whatsoever.

You most certainly did. You cited "the best thing for the country" as being an atheist. If you don't believe that they would act any different, why would they be best? If you don't think that a non-belief would be the reason that they would act different, why bring up atheism?

I specifically claimed they were unlikely to be participating in wars that may have religious influence or benefits. Along with a few other things but we needed to clarify that point: I made no claim that atheist presidents weren't going to participate in wars at all.

Well, then I'm just confused, sorry. Your original statement was:

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.

I questioned that, asking what such a person would automatically bring to the table, from the simple act of non-belief, and you replied:

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 believe that we've both recognized the inherent intolerance of the first of those, we've seen that the United States has not participated in any wars purely for religious reasons, so we're back to "why would this person be the best thing for the country", apart from them agreeing with you on a single point?

I personally don't see any inherent flaw in an atheist that would make me not want to vote for them, regardless of who they are, so I'm just curious to understand what the inherent value is that you find?

The root of the problem, TD, is that you and I seem to agree that atheism is not a religion, that it is simply a non-belief in God. However, your statement seems to imply that you go beyond that, to believe that simple non-belief in God makes one more moral, more just, more rational, more intelligent, more... something... which makes them the best person to run the country.

That is a far different statement than "atheism is a simple non-belief in deities", and I'm asking you where that's coming from.

Originally posted by Annee
No - I have a problem with Left and Right - - - rather then independent thought.

Those who can't accept something said because they feel it is media Left or Right.

I have said absolutely nothing about my political inclinations, left or right. What I said was that the credibility of a source needs to be seen through the filter of its biases. I would scarcely go to the local Toyota dealer and ask him which Ford car he thinks I should buy.

If you wish your source of information about politicians to be third party claims that are unsourced and unsubstantiated, and only published by said politicians' opponents (and fringe ones at that,) feel free, but that is the exact opposite of independent thought.

Originally posted by adjensen
I have said absolutely nothing about my political inclinations, left or right. What I said was that the credibility of a source needs to be seen through the filter of its biases.

Ok - I apologize and will try to behave myself.

I purposely stay out of political threads and only hang out in threads I can express my personal opinion because of my current situation of raising my 3 year old grandson.

However - - I was very involved in a political forum (not ATS) back in 1998 for about 10 years. Sometimes politics sneak into threads that are not political and I get frustrated.

I went into that discussion forum in 1998 as a Bush supporter (I am still officially a Republican or 40+ years). I left in opposition to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld - the Christian Right and the PNAC.

I watched my party get hijacked by the Christian Right - with Bush fully on-board.

Regarding the Iraq war - - follow the money - - oil money. Saddam changed to the Euro.

911 was used as an emotional excuse. Those listed as the terrorists - whether they existed or not - were Saudis - - and had nothing to do with Iraq.

OK - - done with apology and politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an Atheist - - I do not believe in any deity. I do believe other things - - - but still no deity. And nothing I would consider a religion.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Religious reasoning for wars is unlikely to occur with an atheist president.

Absolutely true. But other reasoning for wars would occur, because the root issue is war, not religion. Atheists have not shown themselves immune to the trappings of nationalism, racism, the need for resources, personal power and ambition, and so forth, so to claim that their rule would be any different, simply because they don't believe in God, seems a bit of a stretch.

I made no such claims whatsoever.

You most certainly did. You cited "the best thing for the country" as being an atheist. If you don't believe that they would act any different, why would they be best? If you don't think that a non-belief would be the reason that they would act different, why bring up atheism?

No, I didn't make such claims. My original post is available to verify and I clarified again above.

I will state my opinion again that an atheist president could very well be the best thing for the country. They would very likely be free of superstitious thinking and their atheism may have been derived from skepticism. These are presumably very good qualities to have working in a field dominated by rhetoric.

Originally posted by adjensen
The root of the problem, TD, is that you and I seem to agree that atheism is not a religion, that it is simply a non-belief in God. However, your statement seems to imply that you go beyond that, to believe that simple non-belief in God makes one more moral, more just, more rational, more intelligent, more... something... which makes them the best person to run the country.

No, I disagree that atheism inherently causes any of those things because there are a lot of ignorant and often belligerent atheists in the world. However, a healthy majority of them seem to exhibit a way of thinking uninhibited by religious lore and this could be vastly beneficial in the realm of politics, where many political issues are laden with religious rhetoric. Issues such as stem cell research, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. are all strongly affected by the opinions of America's pious voters.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


be·lief

–noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Sorry Belief is not define as what you want it words have meaning and meaning has implications.


faith
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Faith and belief / believe are synonymous so any you either belief based on faith or you know.

Public school does injustice.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
words have meaning and meaning has implications.

Exactly.
Which is why I pointed out that you failed to distinguish belief from disbelief.

Originally posted by The Revenant

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.

Well since many Godless people do not accept God as the ultimate authority we have to use someone or something to decide what is and what is not.

You may not agree with this and would prefer a barbarian type of environment. Now yes I do not always agree with courts decisions but if people are going to judge my belief in God with Court actions then they must be ready to accept the fact I am Going to use the same ruler to judge their belief in no God.

As for your attacks it is evident that you have brought nothing to the fight but character attack and no real ammunition in defense of your belief. Which is the case of many. example "I am smart and you are stupid",
This kind of remark proves nothing to your point and shows that you may not be educated or are willingly ignorant in the subject and chose not to believe based upon your need to do what ever you please.

May the Lord Jesus bless you with wisdom and knowledge.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
Well since many Godless people do not accept God as the ultimate authority we have to use someone or something to decide what is and what is not.

You may not agree with this and would prefer a barbarian type of environment.

How does not believing in god (and subsequently his alleged authority) lead to "preferring a barbarian type of government"?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I'd say "morals" and "intent" God is perfect. just and loving, ect, which are 3 good qualities to have if someone is ones judge trial and jury.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I'd say "morals" and "intent" God is perfect. just and loving, ect, which are 3 good qualities to have if someone is ones judge trial and jury.

Which god exactly are you talking about that has these qualities?

And does this imply that human morality is sourced to this god?

Originally posted by Annee
I purposely stay out of political threads and only hang out in threads I can express my personal opinion

I would say that is moving past politics 101 and trying to derive possibly where people get their political ideologies from.

politics played a big role for me in any case...

Originally posted by adjensen
You most certainly did. You cited "the best thing for the country" as being an atheist.

I do not believe this would be good either... why elect a person who doe not believe in "all things that are good" but who questions or doubts actually what good and justice and freedom really are.

in other words I would most likely vote for any theistic president before I voted for a atheist one as long as the theistic candidate intentions were "just" and I could relate.