I respect individuals that know right from wrong without needing to consult the bible. These are people that will always try do the right thing even without the threat of hell. Some Christians fall in this category, and I would probably vote for them. *cough* Ron Paul *cough* On the other hand, there are some that only try to be good because they are afraid of going to hell. In addition, they don't have a strong sense of right or wrong without reading the bible. It doesn't seem that they can "feel" what is right or wrong. This type of Christian oftentimes cannot understand atheism at all. They think atheists must live hedonistic lifestyles, because that is what they would do. They cannot understand how we would have ethics, cuz we don't have a bible. These types worry me, and I would not vote for them.
I definitely agree with you there. Believe me, there are too many Christians out there who do wrong. But I do believe that the world is in God's control and those who lead people should believe in that as well. Many European nations had atheist leaders, and we all know how well some of them worked out.
I haven't been following the thread today, but I saw Kalvin rejected my argument. So to be clear Kalvin, you think that Mao/Lenin killed more people and hence were more despicable than deaths to religious leaders. So you also reject the fact that during the time of the Crusades, the leading weapons technology was advanced bows, full metal armor, and trebuchets, while during the time of Mao the leading weaponry was automatic weapons, tanks, bombs, and other modern tools of war. You don't see this as a leading reason for the significant death toll differences between both times of history. You also don't see a complete exponential growth of population worldwide as another significant factor? You are still attempting to compare the actions of Mao and Lenin to the actions of historical groups like the Catholic Church, Christians, Muslims, and many other people who have killed others solely based on religious beliefs. Mao and Lenin didn't just target based on religion, they targeted EVERYTHING: people with money, people with power, people with influence, ANYONE or ANYTHING that stood in the way of Communism. To try and categorize their motives as solely being based on atheism and destroying religion is foolish at best, and dishonest at worst. They needed to control religion to control the masses, but it was but one aspect of society they sough to control completely. Not nearly the same as historical religious genocides.
I always find that one should respect each others' beliefs, for Buddhists they worship Buddha, for Muslims they worship Allah etc, I do not know what you mean by posting such a post on this thread, is this part of a discussion or is it your assertion?
Maybe I am too stupid, I do not know how to comment on your statement, let the more intelligent members take over from here.
Many things, like why people in islamic countries get beheaded for stupid shit. But since this is not an islamic forum and we respect each others here, it would be nice if you tried doing the same. Thanks!
I find it troubling that so many people would let one's religious beliefs affect their vote, all the while using the reasoning that said religious beliefs (atheism) typically infer disrespect of religions and suppression of opposing ideas. Oh, the delicious irony! For the record, I had no problem with Romney's religion. He's free to believe what he wants, and I don't think Mormons should be judged any different from other Christian sects or even any other religions. Now I did have a problem with Huckabee, but that was because he wished to fully legislate his version of Christian morals upon the entire population. I'm not talking even about gay marriage or abortion even, but his wish to escalate the War on Drugs (legislation and force to force attitudes), continue the use of the death penalty (some Christians would argue strongly against this), basically saying a wife should be subservient to her husband (fine for Christians, but don't push that on our nation where women still are fighting for equality), and the way his hardline support of Israel seems consistent with End Times philosophy). Now that is a situation where I feel someone can't draw the line between their religious beliefs and their role as a public official. Your religion can affect your thinking and philosophy (hell it is a strong influence for my candidate of choice Ron Paul), but it is my personal belief that one must understand the distinction between the two, and not use one to support or strengthen the other. Your religion shouldn't be used a tool to be milked for votes like Huckabee has done, and your role as President shouldn't be used as a tool to advance the morals and values of your religion. This is why I could vote for a Romney but not a Huckabee based on religion. I think the world would be a much better place with a fundamental understanding that respecting one another's beliefs means not enforcing your own beliefs through law if their choices do not affect your liberty negatively.
OHH mannn...damn..I must go back to SCHOOL now! Didn't you just grade me down...wow...I must be an English delinquent. Maybe you should report your face...I find that rude!
Wow, what a child. You come in here saying random things and attacking atheists, all the while being barely comprehensible. Iggy'd.