Does religion affect your vote?

Jerry said:

I'm not sure what you're asking...my religion or the candidate's religion?

If the candidate's religion doesn't render his outlook on policey to alien from my own, then I don't have an issue with it.

That being said, I will never support an atheist.

Click to expand...

I like you, I like your post and I like your sig.

Jerry said:

That's just the thing: it does.

Atheists don't share a common understanding of the Natual Law premis because they reject the source of all rights. Since the source is rejected, the existance of the rights themselves falls into question.

Click to expand...

You base this on the idea that you are correct in what you believe and that those atheists are wrong. There is very little evidence that can be substantiated that a god does indeed exist. The major proof of him/her/it is in a book that said god had a hand in writing.

Jerry said:

That's just the thing: it does.

Atheists don't share a common understanding of the Natual Law premis because they reject the source of all rights. Since the source is rejected, the existance of the rights themselves falls into question.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that because a person is an atheist they are immoral?
I don't agree with that. It seems to me that this is my own opinion mind you that those that are religious believe themselves to be mre moral and are in fact less in my view.

Inferno said:

You base this on the idea that you are correct in what you believe and that those atheists are wrong. There is very little evidence that can be substantiated that a god does indeed exist. The major proof of him/her/it is in a book that said god had a hand in writing.

Click to expand...

The idea is that nobody is correct, not even one, justone, but only the Creator which makes garantees the rights to be Inalianable.

Inferno said:

You base this on the idea that you are correct in what you believe and that those atheists are wrong.

Click to expand...

Atheists fundimentaly reject the premis of the DoA and thus the Natural Law premis the Constitution is based on. That's not opinion.

Inferno said:

There is very little evidence that can be substantiated that a god does indeed exist.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

You are looking for evidence which can lead you to a conclusion.

Don't.

God is a premis supposed, not a conclusion supported. Inalianable rights are the same.

Inferno said:

The major proof of him/her/it is in a book that said god had a hand in writing.

Click to expand...

Well mabey for you, but this Christain never found God in the bible.

Inferno said:

Are you saying that because a person is an atheist they are immoral?
I don't agree with that. It seems to me that this is my own opinion mind you that those that are religious believe themselves to be mre moral and are in fact less in my view.

Click to expand...

I'm saying the Constitution is not capable of dealing with godless people.

They can be moral, but they are generaly incompadable with US law.

justone said:

The idea is that nobody is correct, not even one, justone.

Click to expand...

Oh we aren't. If nobody is correct then you are saying there is no god or you believe in that falsely. I am not sure what you are saying and don't want to put words in your mouth.

Inferno said:

Oh we aren't. If nobody is correct then you are saying there is no god or you believe in that falsely. I am not sure what you are saying and don't want to put words in your mouth.

Click to expand...

That is to make co-existence of corrects, incoreects, more corrects or less corrects possible there has to be an entity which, proven or not proven to exist, has to be presumed to be absolutely correct. Unfortunately for atheists it is self evident that the entity which can possibly be presumed, proven or not proven to exist, to be absolutely correct in the Nature can be only the Creator of the Nature, the One godly people believe in and godless people deny. Removing the Creator from the equation leaves you vulnerable as with my training in logic and boxing I will always prove that I am more correct than you are. Thus God acts as your only protector and the only guarantee of your rights.

Jerry said:

I haven't seen it yet.

Click to expand...

Inexperience does not negate possibility. All people's experiences are naturally limited by various factors.

The conclusion: I will never support an atheist

This must be dependent on a series of premises, some of which are false:

Premise One: Every atheist I've encountered had an outlook on policy that was alien from my own (True premise)

Premise two: If I have never encountered something, it cannot exist (false premise)

Premise three: I will never support a politician who's outlook on policy is alien from my own (true premise)

Conclusion: I will never suppor tan athiest because all atheists have an outlook on policy that is alien from my own.

Since premise two is false, the conclusion is invalid.

Had you said: I doubt I will ever support an atheist.

It adjusts the false premise to "If I have never encountered something, I will doubt that it exists" and validates the logic.

And then you would have a logical conclusion.

What you have done with your first statement is fall prey to exactly the same flawed premise that many atheists use when they argue that God does not exist.

Adjusting the premise and conclusion to convey that it is doubt, instead of a unequivocal statement fixes that logical error.

Who is this Testiculees dude, who's been a member since 2007 with zero posts?

justone said:

That is to make co-existence of corrects, incoreects, more corrects or less corrects possible there has to be an entity which, proven or not proven to exist, has to be presumed to be absolutely correct. Unfortunately for atheists it is self evident that the entity which can possibly be presumed, proven or not proven to exist, to be absolutely correct in the Nature can be only the Creator of the Nature, the One godly people believe in and godless people deny. Removing the Creator from the equation leaves you vulnerable as with my training in logic and boxing I will always prove that I am more correct than you are. Thus God acts as your only protector and the only guarantee of your rights.

Click to expand...

How does one decide that something that defies all logic and all the rules of nature and has really zero substantiation is absolutely correct. It would be as if I believed that the Lord of The Rings were history. Both works of fantasy.

I can do it myself and you can't disprove it. In the beginning Inferno created the ..... How can you say with certainty that I did not. If you can't believe that with no proof how can you believe in the god of the bible?

American said:

Who is this Testiculees dude, who's been a member since 2007 with zero posts?

Click to expand...

He is still thinking about how he will introduce himself. Give him time. Please don't put pressure on him.

Its pretty irrelevant to me. I care about where the candidates stand on the issues, not what they personally believe in. Obviously a candidates beliefs can affect his stand on the issues and his stand on the issues will affect my views. I do think candidates should respect religion. I wouldn't vote for a militant athiest, but that's more because they tend to be as narrow minded and condescending as the worst legalistic Christians.

I do agree with Jerry that I find it hard to understand how an athiest can believe in natural rights. However, its not a major issue for me. As long as they agree with me on policy, I'm not overly concerned about the basis of their political philosophy.

Psychoclown said:

I do agree with Jerry that I find it hard to understand how an athiest can believe in natural rights.

Click to expand...

I personally believe that natural rights exist without being "endowed by a Creator" because I feel that having such natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are part of the natural order of things.

One of the terms that is used in the DoA is "Nature's God".

I like this term because I interpret it to mean a natural order of how things should be, not necessarily a deity, although a deity could easily be the causal force of this natural order.

The natural order of things would include all things necessary for self-preservation and self autonomy. Natural Rights follow from this belief. For me, the right to bear arms is an aspect of self-preservation. The right to free speech, self-autonomy. etc. etc.

Since, from my perspective, self-autonomy and self-preservation are necessities for the continued existence of the species, I feel that rights exist independent of outside factors.

It follows from my belief in the existence natural order and my belief that there is a natural order is not dependent on the belief in a deity.

Thank you for the explanation. As I said it was a minor point, as I don't expect or really care what the basis is for a politician's political philosophy. As long as we agree on policy, I'm willing to support a given candidate.

Psychoclown said:

Thank you for the explanation. As I said it was a minor point, as I don't expect or really care what the basis is for a politician's political philosophy. As long as we agree on policy, I'm willing to support a given candidate.

Click to expand...

No problem. I just figured the explanation was worth giving in this context.

Psychoclown said:

Its pretty irrelevant to me. I care about where the candidates stand on the issues, not what they personally believe in. Obviously a candidates beliefs can affect his stand on the issues and his stand on the issues will affect my views. I do think candidates should respect religion. I wouldn't vote for a militant athiest, but that's more because they tend to be as narrow minded and condescending as the worst legalistic Christians.

I do agree with Jerry that I find it hard to understand how an athiest can believe in natural rights. However, its not a major issue for me. As long as they agree with me on policy, I'm not overly concerned about the basis of their political philosophy.

Click to expand...

It really does not take religion to see that people need to have rights and are free. God really adds nothing to that. The concept of god only tells me that some people think themselves less without one. I tend to think that you are probably really a great person and get your morals and values from within and not from a god. If the idea of god brings you peace and comfort that is wonderful i ma happy for you in that.

Inferno said:

It really does not take religion to see that people need to have rights and are free. God really adds nothing to that. The concept of god only tells me that some people think themselves less without one. I tend to think that you are probably really a great person and get your morals and values from within and not from a god. If the idea of god brings you peace and comfort that is wonderful i ma happy for you in that.

Click to expand...

You can say people need to have rights and not believe in natural, inalienable rights.

I've seen some left wingers (not all) argue that man has no natural rights. That our rights are bestowed upon us by a benevolent government and those rights can be taken away by the same government.

I believe we have natural rights that are inalienable and any government that seeks to take them away is illegitimate. I hold this to be an absolute truth. Most atheists I've spoken with reject the notion of absolute truths.

Inferno said:

How does one decide that something that defies all logic and all the rules of nature and has really zero substantiation is absolutely correct. It would be as if I believed that the Lord of The Rings were history. Both works of fantasy.

Click to expand...

First of all you have to prove that it exists, then that it defies all logic and all the rules of nature and has really zero substantiation, and it is a work of fantasy. And while you are announcing that you have the absolute knowledge of nature I would be putting my boxing gloves on preparing my contra-argument, because you belong to those atheists for whom they are the only way of reasoning.

People said to me: "You’ve dropped a clanger -
With his left foot Fisher comes out top
Playing chess machines like Capablanca
Moving as a clockwork army tanker.’’
That’s okay, once roused I never stop.

If I’m running out of minutes
I won’t fret or bust a gut.
I’ll rely on strength of spirit
And a perfect uppercut

"Take it slow and most of all stay upright,"
Said my boxer friend last time we spoke.
"Hit the body, stay out of inside fights,
Make the knockout punch your masterstroke."

Fisher this time won’t escape disaster -
It’s on the cards that I’ll bring back the crown.
I played with Tal, the Latvian grandmaster,
Ten rounds of snooker, blackjack and canasta
And Tal said: "I see you won’t let us down."

Oh, the bulging of my biceps!
Ah, my deltoids hard and tight!
See my chessmen move with light steps!
Oh, my bishops and my knights!


Vladimir Vysotsky

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvI0NmLmP-4"]YouTube - Владимир Вы�оцкий "Че�ть шахматной короны"[/ame]

That’s why atheists are dangerous, - each and every of them plays god. Your post should sober up some who don’t understand that atheists will certainly infringe on freedom not only of speech but even freedom of thoughts if in power, as certainly as they have demonstrated throughout history.

Nobody decided. In the body of atheism there people who have an ability to think. Those people and all theists can have a common language independent from their beliefs. For instance, if an atheist gives a bank loan to a theist, they calculate a monthly payment in the same way using the same equation. It is called mathematics. It is self evident for such people that if to take all corrects, incorrects, more corrects or less corrects claiming so of themselves in the nature then neither of them can objectively range them in correctness at any point of the nature, but it could be done only by a hypothetical creator of the nature who would posses the absolute correctness by the definition, for whom all the numbers would be equally distant and have equal rights to exist and have their equal purpose in the created nature. The creator is a mathematical abstract at this point, it is ‘work of fantasy’ as you say at this moment. Unfortunately for you we, Christians call it God and believe that this ‘work of fantasy’ is real. Unfortunately for you even if the was no creator like this then the assumption of this hypothetical creator as real is the only way of making you and me equal. It is not like I would believe you or John to make us equal and maintain this equality.

Inferno said:

I can do it myself and you can't disprove it. In the beginning Inferno created the ..... How can you say with certainty that I did not. If you can't believe that with no proof how can you believe in the god of the bible?

Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ces-prove-existence-god-9.html#post1058026173

Tucker Case said:

Inexperience does not negate possibility. All people's experiences are naturally limited by various factors.

The conclusion: I will never support an atheist

This must be dependent on a series of premises, some of which are false:

Premise One: Every atheist I've encountered had an outlook on policy that was alien from my own (True premise)

Premise two: If I have never encountered something, it cannot exist (false premise)

Premise three: I will never support a politician who's outlook on policy is alien from my own (true premise)

Conclusion: I will never suppor tan athiest because all atheists have an outlook on policy that is alien from my own.

Since premise two is false, the conclusion is invalid.

Had you said: I doubt I will ever support an atheist.

It adjusts the false premise to "If I have never encountered something, I will doubt that it exists" and validates the logic.

And then you would have a logical conclusion.

What you have done with your first statement is fall prey to exactly the same flawed premise that many atheists use when they argue that God does not exist.

Adjusting the premise and conclusion to convey that it is doubt, instead of a unequivocal statement fixes that logical error.

Click to expand...

I accept your correction.

If my understanding of atheism is changed, then I would be open to supporting an atheist. However as my understanding exists now, I reserve my vote.

Jerry said:

I accept your correction.

If my understanding of atheism is changed, then I would be open to supporting an atheist. However as my understanding exists now, I reserve my vote.

Click to expand...

Works for me and I can understand why you feel that way given your views.

Psychoclown said:

You can say people need to have rights and not believe in natural, inalienable rights.

I've seen some left wingers (not all) argue that man has no natural rights. That our rights are bestowed upon us by a benevolent government and those rights can be taken away by the same government.

I believe we have natural rights that are inalienable and any government that seeks to take them away is illegitimate. I hold this to be an absolute truth. Most atheists I've spoken with reject the notion of absolute truths.

Click to expand...

I think that we are born to be free. We give up a portion of our freedoms to a society so that we feel safe and protected. We endow a government to protect our rights. The problem is in most cases government tramples our rights.

Inferno said:

You base this on the idea that you are correct in what you believe and that those atheists are wrong. There is very little evidence that can be substantiated that a god does indeed exist. The major proof of him/her/it is in a book that said god had a hand in writing.

Click to expand...

And you ask why we don't support Atheists.:doh

Wessexman said:

And you ask why we don't support Atheists.:doh

Click to expand...

Well do you have any real evidence to show me that this god exists? I mean in a real source outside of the bible which can't be used as a source for proof of god.

Inferno said:

Well do you have any real evidence to show me that this god exists? I mean in a real source outside of the bible which can't be used as a source for proof of god.

Click to expand...

As I said it is these crude and arrogant attacks, when it isn't even relevant, that makes a lot of us on the religious side have little time for Atheists. You set up this debate which is not primarily not about the validity of religion Vs. Atheism and then you subject our belief systems to quite crude and arrogant attacks.

In my experience this is not a unique, although then again not a necessary, attitude among Atheists and rabid secularists.