Voting For/Against Atheists

[JoeyKnothead]

Let's see if there is any rational, verifiable rhyme or reason to disclude a candidate based on their lack of religion.

Question:
For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

[Goat]

Let's see if there is any rational, verifiable rhyme or reason to disclude a candidate based on their lack of religion.

Question:
For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

<sarcasm> you don't know what they will do. They have no morals, they might have sex in the oval office, or start a war with lies </sarcasm>

[East of Eden]

I would vote for an atheist if their political views aligned with mine. We're not voting for pastor.

Now, would the atheists here vote for a Bible-believing, evangelical Christian?

[Mere_Christian]

Let's see if there is any rational, verifiable rhyme or reason to disclude a candidate based on their lack of religion.

Question:
For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

There is no moral authority of an atheist to call upon other than their own mind, perspective, passions and desires.

The intense disdain showed people of faith by just about every expression of skeptic/freethinker/humanist organization, is one where the election of an individual that sees their own idea of all things as superior to the large voice of the populace is a prescription for horror.

Hasn't history and pop culture (abortion and promiscuity, hedonism and permissiveness), war and weapons of mass destruction (invented by scientists ruled by their own passions) showed us the intense danger of this kind of person?

From John Locke:

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple


Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.

As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

(http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 4:

There is no moral authority of an atheist to call upon other than their own mind, perspective, passions and desires.

Can you prove your "moral authority" is anything other than the above?

The intense disdain showed people of faith by just about every expression of skeptic/freethinker/humanist organization, is one where the election of an individual that sees their own idea of all things as superior to the large voice of the populace is a prescription for horror.

LOL Dems say this about Reps, and vice versa, and I say it about both groups.

Do some Christians not display "disdain" for those with whom they disagree?

Hasn't history and pop culture (abortion and promiscuity, hedonism and permissiveness)

Subjective values.

war and weapons of mass destruction (invented by scientists ruled by their own passions) showed us the intense danger of this kind of person?

I note that a weapon of mass destruction helped bring an end to war with Japan. They have also been attributed with the otherwise stalemate of the Cold War era.

Can we confirm all involved with building weapons of mass destruction are atheists?

From John Locke:...1689

I see little value in such ancient modes of thinking.

If this is what one needs to feel a sense of superiority over atheists then I suppose I come closer to understanding why they accept tales based on two thousand year old Bronze Age goat herders.

But what the heck, I got time...

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

Yes they can, because their standing within the society is diminished when they are called on such.

The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all

I think one would be hard pressed to prove this. Given the lack of evidence for something, how can it ever be "taken away"?

besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.

I've yet to see an atheist espouse or act in a "pretence of religion". That Mr. Locke finds atheists so objectionable is duly noted. I also contend his reasons for such fail the OP's "rational, verifiable rhyme or reason".

As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

LOL "As long as he worships the same god I do he's a danged fine human being; elsewise he's pond scum".

[Mere_Christian]

From Page 1 Post 4:

There is no moral authority of an atheist to call upon other than their own mind, perspective, passions and desires.

Can you prove your "moral authority" is anything other than the above?

Yup. I do the things I do because of a greater Mind offering greater freedom than just doing things for my own gratification.

Atheism offers no more then the Wiccan Rede Do as thou wilteth . . . It is declared in the Humanist Manifesto, written supposedly by bright and enlightened impressive elites. Yet it's no more than epicureanism written in English.

The intense disdain showed people of faith by just about every expression of skeptic/freethinker/humanist organization, is one where the election of an individual that sees their own idea of all things as superior to the large voice of the populace is a prescription for horror.

LOL Dems say this about Reps, and vice versa, and I say it about both groups.

The reason why we registered Independents have grown so large in number. But, why is it so acceptable for the clubmembership of the nongodians to insult people of faith?

Do some Christians not display "disdain" for those with whom they disagree?

Yes. I know I do.

Hasn't history and pop culture (abortion and promiscuity, hedonism and permissiveness)

Subjective values.

A ignorant position? There is nothing subjective about the diseases of decadence.

war and weapons of mass destruction (invented by scientists ruled by their own passions) showed us the intense danger of this kind of person?

I note that a weapon of mass destruction helped bring an end to war with Japan.

It killed many people. They still do.

They have also been attributed with the otherwise stalemate of the Cold War era.

And look where we are now.

Can we confirm all involved with building weapons of mass destruction are atheists?

Let me check the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.

From John Locke:...1689

I see little value in such ancient modes of thinking.

Hmm, of course you don't. But you'll jump on the Thomas Jefferson bandwagon to rid schools of Christians. TJ, a traitor, war-monger, terrorist and slave owner. A secularist.

If this is what one needs to feel a sense of superiority over atheists then I suppose I come closer to understanding why they accept tales based on two thousand year old Bronze Age goat herders.

That knew better than to think anything can come from nothing. Let alone everything. I'll side with logic and math, just as they did.

But what the heck, I got time...

Who created time?

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

Yes they can, because their standing within the society is diminished when they are called on such.

Is that sentence supposed to make sense?

There is no justice in efvolutionary Darwinism. Just kill, eat and screw. And please notice that that screwing is exclusively for begetting offspring. Evolution is the pure homophobe. Literally and scientifically so. But that for another thread.

The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all

I think one would be hard pressed to prove this. Given the lack of evidence for something, how can it ever be "taken away"?

The earth and cosmos is a heck of an evidence exhibit A. Chaos from chaos to order and observable science still makes no sense to most people.

besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.

I've yet to see an atheist espouse or act in a "pretence of religion". That Mr. Locke finds atheists so objectionable is duly noted. I also contend his reasons for such fail the OP's "rational, verifiable rhyme or reason".

He lived with the enlightened. Most who were as base and debased as it gets.

As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

LOL "As long as he worships the same god I do he's a danged fine human being; elsewise he's pond scum".

Pond scum that became a a squirrell that became a monkey that became us. All that in couple hundred trillion years? Uhhh, yeah.

That's truly LOL. In fact it's LMAO.

The fairy tale of evolution being the rise of mudmonkeys to man is wearing thin.

Luckily humor gets us through dealing with ignorant beliefs right?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 6:

There is no moral authority of an atheist to call upon other than their own mind, perspective, passions and desires.

Can you prove your "moral authority" is anything other than the above?

Yup. I do the things I do because of a greater Mind offering greater freedom than just doing things for my own gratification...

And this is proof how? Where is this "greater mind"? What is this "greater mind"?

Atheism offers no more then the Wiccan Rede Do as thou wilteth . . . It is declared in the Humanist Manifesto...

Hold up on that car wash gentlemen.

one who believes that there is no deity

a: devotion to the humanities : literary culture b: the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance2: humanitarianism3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values ; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
— hu·man·ist Listen to the pronunciation of humanist \-nist\ noun or adjective

Need I explain the difference?

The reason why we registered Independents have grown so large in number. But, why is it so acceptable for the clubmembership of the nongodians to insult people of faith?

I'm an independent too !

I suppose now we must argue over which one of is is the "true" independent

Folks will insult folks. Do you think theists have never insulted atheists?

...snip...

Hasn't history and pop culture (abortion and promiscuity, hedonism and permissiveness)

Subjective values.

A ignorant position? There is nothing subjective about the diseases of decadence.

One of us seems ignorant here. What is "decadence" to one is another's night with the hot twins.

I suppose the observer must decide which of us is the ignorant one.

war and weapons of mass destruction (invented by scientists ruled by their own passions) showed us the intense danger of this kind of person?

I note that a weapon of mass destruction helped bring an end to war with Japan.

It killed many people. They still do.

So true. However, condemning science based on the harms folks use science for is like me blaming all christians for the oppressions inflicted by a few.

They have also been attributed with the otherwise stalemate of the Cold War era.

And look where we are now.

Trying to keep such out of the hands of religious extremists?

Can we confirm all involved with building weapons of mass destruction are atheists?

Let me check the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.

See definitions of such above. You seem to have a lot of misplaced blame/anger.

I see little value in such ancient modes of thinking.

Hmm, of course you don't. But you'll jump on the Thomas Jefferson bandwagon to rid schools of Christians...

Please do not accuse me of positions I have not advocated.

I see no reason to "rid schools of Christians" so much as reason to "rid government of religious meddling in the affairs of others".

...TJ, a traitor, war-monger, terrorist and slave owner. A secularist.

Need I list Christians who are "traitors, war-mongers, terrorsts or slave owners"?

That knew better than to think anything can come from nothing. Let alone everything. I'll side with logic and math, just as they did.

Does logic dictate that dead folks hop up out of graves after three days?

Who created time?

I don't know. Do you? Remember now, I tend to challenge even the goofiest of claims.

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

Yes they can, because their standing within the society is diminished when they are called on such.

Is that sentence supposed to make sense?

It does to me; atheists who break their word, etc. are often called out for such within business, home, school, academia, and various other areas of society. Atheists don't tend to blame unseen spirits for their failings.

There is no justice in efvolutionary Darwinism...

Your subjective opinion about what constitutes "justice" is noted. I offer my subjective opinion that when organisms are better adapted to their environment, there is justice in knowing they will continue to propagate their species.

...And please notice that that screwing is exclusively for begetting offspring...

Nope. I prefer to do much of this without creating offspring. Again, your subjective opinion is noted.

The earth and cosmos is a heck of an evidence exhibit A...

How is the Earth and cosmos evidence of a god or gods?

...Chaos from chaos to order and observable science still makes no sense to most people.

Another subjective opinion. "Chaos" is relative to the observer.

I've yet to see an atheist espouse or act in a "pretence of religion". That Mr. Locke finds atheists so objectionable is duly noted. I also contend his reasons for such fail the OP's "rational, verifiable rhyme or reason".

He lived with the enlightened. Most who were as base and debased as it gets.

Though you offer no criteria by which to determine what is "base and debased", I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict it will be more subjective opinion on your part.

Pond scum that became a a squirrell that became a monkey that became us. All that in couple hundred trillion years? Uhhh, yeah.

Or "blow on some dust and 'poof' up sprouts a human"?

The fairy tale of evolution being the rise of mudmonkeys to man is wearing thin.

As opposed to the "fairy tale" of blowing on dust and creating humans?

Luckily humor gets us through dealing with ignorant beliefs right?

You're a barrel of 'mudmonkeys'

[Mere_Christian]

There is no moral authority of an atheist to call upon other than their own mind, perspective, passions and desires.

Can you prove your "moral authority" is anything other than the above?

Yup. I do the things I do because of a greater Mind offering greater freedom than just doing things for my own gratification...

And this is proof how? Where is this "greater mind"? What is this "greater mind"?

It takes free thinking. I observe that there is a voice of reason from "god" that living like a Tom Cat does not bring ultimate peace of mind.

Atheism offers no more then the Wiccan Rede Do as thou wilteth . . . It is declared in the Humanist Manifesto...

Hold up on that car wash gentlemen.

Cool, here we go . . .

one who believes that there is no deity

a: devotion to the humanities : literary culture b: the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance2: humanitarianism3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values ; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
— hu·man·ist Listen to the pronunciation of humanist \-nist\ noun or adjective

Need I explain the difference?

Try using the Humanist Manifesto. The one signed by all those enlightened thinkers.

This one:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Atheism defined.

The reason why we registered Independents have grown so large in number. But, why is it so acceptable for the clubmembership of the nongodians to insult people of faith?

I'm an independent too !

I suppose now we must argue over which one of is is the "true" independent[/qupte]

How many conservative Republicans have you voted for? I voted for Grey Davis and fought against his removal for Arnold's ascension.

Folks will insult folks. Do you think theists have never insulted atheists?

See my handcuffs? In real life I am far more insulting towards atheism and those that espouse it. But you atheists are far worse in terms of numbers of times you insult us. This website is an easy place to see this as fact.

Hasn't history and pop culture (abortion and promiscuity, hedonism and permissiveness)

Subjective values.

A ignorant position? There is nothing subjective about the diseases of decadence.

One of us seems ignorant here. What is "decadence" to one is another's night with the hot twins.

Unil I have to pay for the Food Stamps for your kids. The ones I didn't have to pay for to have killed by abortion.

I suppose the observer must decide which of us is the ignorant one.

An observor of the inner city. Truth is on my side. As is reality.

war and weapons of mass destruction (invented by scientists ruled by their own passions) showed us the intense danger of this kind of person?

I note that a weapon of mass destruction helped bring an end to war with Japan.

It killed many people. They still do.

So true. However, condemning science based on the harms folks use science for is like me blaming all christians for the oppressions inflicted by a few.

I'm not condemning science. I am condemning those that use it to insult Christians. Science is no enemy of God. We're well on the way for "science" showing us how God does things.

They have also been attributed with the otherwise stalemate of the Cold War era.

And look where we are now.

Trying to keep such out of the hands of religious extremists?

Hmm, how about ascribing that to the one religion that has never stopped killing people in its name? A little accuracy and honesty would be appreciated.

Can we confirm all involved with building weapons of mass destruction are atheists?

Let me check the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.

See definitions of such above. You seem to have a lot of misplaced blame/anger.

It took very little effort to show you wrong here.

I see little value in such ancient modes of thinking.

Hmm, of course you don't. But you'll jump on the Thomas Jefferson bandwagon to rid schools of Christians...

Please do not accuse me of positions I have not advocated.

You run in a herd of gazelles, I have the right to see you as a Gazelle.

I see no reason to "rid schools of Christians" so much as reason to "rid government of religious meddling in the affairs of others".

Democracy says we Christians get a vote.

...TJ, a traitor, war-monger, terrorist and slave owner. A secularist.

Need I list Christians who are "traitors, war-mongers, terrorsts or slave owners"?

The ones that other Christians fought? Ever raed Lincoln's Second Inaugural? God dealt with those slave owning Christians.

That knew better than to think anything can come from nothing. Let alone everything. I'll side with logic and math, just as they did.

Does logic dictate that dead folks hop up out of graves after three days?

Yes. The New Testament record lends support to the resurrection of Jesus of Roman Judea.

Who created time?

I don't know. Do you? Remember now, I tend to challenge even the goofiest of claims.

Well tehn, good. I wish everyone to leave atheism by using their minds to think their way out of it.

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

Yes they can, because their standing within the society is diminished when they are called on such.

Is that sentence supposed to make sense?

It does to me; atheists who break their word, etc. are often called out for such within business, home, school, academia, and various other areas of society. Atheists don't tend to blame unseen spirits for their failings.

They have invented pat little psychological reasons to do. One is not a liar, but compulsive. ADD and ADHD for a nasty little kid, raised by a struggling single mother. You have many more excuses, you atheists, then anything we religious have to offer.

There is no justice in evolutionary Darwinism...

Your subjective opinion about what constitutes "justice" is noted. I offer my subjective opinion that when organisms are better adapted to their environment, there is justice in knowing they will continue to propagate their species.

Subjective and objective. According to what nature shows us.

...And please notice that that screwing is exclusively for begetting offspring...

Nope. I prefer to do much of this without creating offspring. Again, your subjective opinion is noted.

Fun sex is anti-evolutionary. Thank God for it.

The earth and cosmos is a heck of an evidence exhibit A...

How is the Earth and cosmos evidence of a god or gods?

Science and math. Chaos doesn't create Corvettes.

...Chaos from chaos to order and observable science still makes no sense to most people.

Another subjective opinion. "Chaos" is relative to the observer.

Go into a public school for objective proof.

I've yet to see an atheist espouse or act in a "pretence of religion". That Mr. Locke finds atheists so objectionable is duly noted. I also contend his reasons for such fail the OP's "rational, verifiable rhyme or reason".

He lived with the enlightened. Most who were as base and debased as it gets.

Though you offer no criteria by which to determine what is "base and debased", I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict it will be more subjective opinion on your part.

Pond scum that became a a squirrell that became a monkey that became us. All that in couple hundred trillion years? Uhhh, yeah.

Or "blow on some dust and 'poof' up sprouts a human"?

Science is great isn't it?

The fairy tale of evolution being the rise of mudmonkeys to man is wearing thin.

As opposed to the "fairy tale" of blowing on dust and creating humans?

We are nothing more than chemicals and water. See how science is so good. Yet, nothing can do nothing about making those chamicals people. Or even frogs.

Luckily humor gets us through dealing with ignorant beliefs right?

You're a barrel of 'mudmonkeys'

I'm starting to like you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 8:

It takes free thinking. I observe that there is a voice of reason from "god" that living like a Tom Cat does not bring ultimate peace of mind.

By what means can we verify this "voice of reason" as being from a god?

What is your response to those who say living like a tomcat does bring peace of mind? Why should your opinion hold more authority?

>on humanism<

Well I'll be danged, I'm a humanist by most of these standards.

As long as no one is hurt, what is so bad about "do as thy wilst" policies?

Unil I have to pay for the Food Stamps for your kids. The ones I didn't have to pay for to have killed by abortion.

You've never paid for me or my family to ever go on the government dole.

Many of your arguments - here 'decadence' - are your own personal opinion of what constitutes 'decadence'.

Had you wished to complain about folks on food stamps, then please, speak clearly and stop adding meaning onto words that are not present in your original statements.

"Decadence" is still, regardless of your reluctance to pay for folks to be on food stamps, a subjective value.

Where some see "decadence" others see "freedom".

An observor of the inner city. Truth is on my side. As is reality.

As I live in the sticks, I have no way of knowing whether my lifestyle is preferable to those in the inner city.

Again, you have not clearly stated why the "inner city" is such a bad thing, other than perhaps implying "they're 'decadent'".

What specifically is so bad about the "inner city"?

I'm not condemning science. I am condemning those that use it to insult Christians...

That a given scientific point is insulting to Christians is on them. "Facts is facts", no matter how offended one is by such facts.

...Science is no enemy of God...

Of course not. I would seem to be the enemy of many a Christian though.

...We're well on the way for "science" showing us how God does things...

So you say.

Trying to keep such out of the hands of religious extremists?

Hmm, how about ascribing that to the one religion that has never stopped killing people in its name? A little accuracy and honesty would be appreciated.

Do you deny the US is currently engaged in trying to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of religious extremists?

I make no separation between various god beliefs in this regard. I think of such folks as Eric Rudolph, and others who have blown up people and buildings because they thought that is what their god wanted.

This in no way excuses those atheists who have acted violently. However, I'm just not seeing a lot of reports about such.

Can we confirm all involved with building weapons of mass destruction are atheists?

Let me check the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.

See definitions of such above. You seem to have a lot of misplaced blame/anger.

It took very little effort to show you wrong here.

Where did you show only atheists have been involved in producing weapons of mass destruction?

Hmm, of course you don't. But you'll jump on the Thomas Jefferson bandwagon to rid schools of Christians...

Please do not accuse me of positions I have not advocated.

You run in a herd of gazelles, I have the right to see you as a Gazelle.

I ask you again, please do not accuse me of positions I have not advocated.

I challenge you to quote verbatim where I have said this.

Lacking that, I ask you to retract the claim.

I have had this issue with you before where you try to make my claims for me or misrepresent my statements.

I'm not having any of it.

Are you capable of debating on the merits of your position, or must you falsely accuse me of claims and statements I have NOT made?

Does your god condone distorting others' words in an effort to further your own agenda?

I'll leave the rest of your post be until you can quote me as you claim, or retract a deliberate and unwarranted distortion of my words.

[chrispalasz]

Let's see if there is any rational, verifiable rhyme or reason to disclude a candidate based on their lack of religion.

Question:
For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

Well, there are atheists who I trust. I would not disinclude a political candidate based solely on their lack of religious belief.

Having said that - I probably would not vote an atheist into high office unless I really felt strongly that I knew their intentions... which probably means I wouldn't vote for them since politicians tend to speak with such shallow detail and thick rhetoric.

Generally speaking - I wouldn't trust the atheist not to suppress religion or ignore (or be unsympathetic towards) believers entirely.

There is no moral authority of an atheist to call upon other than their own mind, perspective, passions and desires.

Can you prove your "moral authority" is anything other than the above?

It wouldn't matter if a person's belief in God were a construct of their mind - so long as they believed it wasn't - they are held accountable by their own beliefs.