I do not intend for this to be a debate about to our current administration.
Here is the scenario:
There are 2 candidates:
One is an atheist who has promised strong action in regards to pollution and global warming. He favors gay marriage, abortion rights and keeping prayer out of public schools. He does not attend church and has promised to block any attempt to teach the creationism in public schools. He is single and comes from Oregon.
The other candidate is a Christian. He has always gone to church, has a beautiful wife and children. He is from North Dakota. He also believes that Pastor John Hagee and other major fundamentalist Christian leaders are correct: The apocalypse is upon us and the 2nd coming of Jesus is eminent so we must prepare at all costs.
Who gets your vote?
Appocolypse or atheist?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Appocolypse or atheist?
Post #21I'm not allowed to vote - but given my lack of belief I 'd have to go with the atheist.Cmass wrote: Who gets your vote?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #23
I vote every year just to cancel my one of my republican friends votes.
It is the least I can do for my country.
It is the least I can do for my country.
Post #25
If I could vote in America, it would have to be for the Atheist. People who shout about their morality do not provide good leadership.
Speaking from an Irish point of view where the Catholic Church ran the country for decades, "moral" people do not provide for wise governing. It is people with faults and failings that give better leadership exactly because they have failings and understand what should and shouldn't be done. It is precisely why Bill Clinton is viewed as been a good President outside of the States. A good saying I came across regarding such a debate is:
Maybe we should replace cynics with atheists.
Speaking from an Irish point of view where the Catholic Church ran the country for decades, "moral" people do not provide for wise governing. It is people with faults and failings that give better leadership exactly because they have failings and understand what should and shouldn't be done. It is precisely why Bill Clinton is viewed as been a good President outside of the States. A good saying I came across regarding such a debate is:
The worst Government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when the fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.
Maybe we should replace cynics with atheists.
"I'd rather know than believe" Carl Sagan.
"The worst Government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when the fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." H.L. Mencken
"The worst Government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when the fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." H.L. Mencken
Post #27
So what's wrong with changing the scenario and answering the question with a question?Cmass wrote:micatala wrote:I'l pose another question:
Who would you pick?:
Candidate A: Christian, against abortion but does not favor a total ban but rather a regulatory process involving an application (something like licensing a gun), very pro-environmental and anti-war. Against the death penalty. Ambivalent on gay marriage. Honest as the day is long.
Candidate B: An atheist. Backed by big oil. Has changed views on a number of big issues for political expediency. Also touts his environmental views, but her votes show a tendency to forget these when oil is involved.
You are changing the scenario as a way to answer the question.
Try again.
Who gets your vote? Why?
I thought my question was better anyway.
Besides, you seem to have missed that I did answer the question; at least I did pick a candidate.
I would pick the guy from Oregon because I think he would provide more responsible leadership. He would be more likely to be able to understand and take into account other viewpoints. He is on average more in line with my particular views on the issues.
On my as yet unanswered question, Ok then. You can vote on my A vs B in the other thread here.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #30
5 token donation for you!Quote from Chem:
The worst Government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when the fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.
Maybe we should replace cynics with atheists.
"I'd rather know than believe" Carl Sagan.
The current administration consists of a president who openly believes in the apocalypse and gets his advice from pastor John Hagee
who wrote this wonderful book:
and his buddy Darrell Cole who wrote this wonderful Christian best seller (I took both using phone cell phone camera in a Christian book store):
I'm sure you will sleep better over there in Ireland knowing who is running the U.S.
I am truly embarrassed and sickened for what we have allowed to occur on this side of the pond. Hopefully they will continue to unravel as major figures continue to uncovered as perverts and liars and child molesters (the latest: Mark Foley) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6195951
Last edited by Cmass on Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
