Would you vote for an Atheist?

[rory_20_uk]

The religion doesn't, but it might influence the policies that one comes up with.

E.G. I would vote for a Christian, but not one that was campaigning on banning all trading on Sundays / pogrom against gays / compulsory Church on Sundays for example.

[Wishazu]

I would vote for an Athiest, I don't have anything against them as I am one myself. Not many politicians here in the UK are really outspoken about there personal beliefs or lack thereof so I don't know whether I have voted for a religious person or not in the past.

I have to admit though that finding out Nick Clegg was an Athiest a few weeks before the election was a deciding factor in my voting Lib Dem.

[Skullheadhq]

banning all trading on Sundays

Why not? This is very good to protect small businesses against big corporations.

[rory_20_uk]

I'd rather increase consumer choice than force me into not doing any shopping on one of the two days in a week that I get off.

Small businesses can hire staff just as any other enterprise can.

[Skullheadhq]

I'd rather increase consumer choice than force me into not doing any shopping on one of the two days in a week that I get off.

Small businesses can hire staff just as any other enterprise can.

Sunday staff is more expansive and many small businesses cannot afford it, big businesses can so people will shop there for the rest of the week as well, small business loses customers and goes bankrupt. Things are not as simple as they seem.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Noooo! Atheists telling Christians what to believe, my pet peeve of all time. This is as bad as that thread where atheists said women shouldn't wear the burka because it's no in the koran.

Jesus taught to love your neighbour, I doubt that falls under telling people they are going to burn in hell. Also man has no right to judge, judgement is reserved right of the father in Heaven, only he may judge who goes to heaven and who does no.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

First of, Jesus regulalry told people himself that they were going to "burn in hell". And as John said, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), so no that right isn't reserved to the father.

Furthermore, Matthew 7:1 is the verse most commonly taken out of context in the whole Bible. Although you did at least show the next bit, where he says sort yourself out, and then you can admonish your brother! That requires judgment. Paul himself was happy to use his judgment, as he wrote "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed" (1 Cor 5:3).

Jesus praises the meek, he doesn't want people showing off their charity donations and using the Lord names in vain as his false champions.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Being meek in spirit has nothing to do with your temporal power. Otherwise we should discard every said by Moses, David, and half the Old Testament characters! The point is they got where they were by trusting in God and not in their own strenght, hence why God always chooses the younger son as with Isaac and then Jacob etc, to show that they only get what the achieve by his power, not their own strength.

As for the Creation, it is a Story written by man, showing how God created the world. There is even seven different versions of it in Judaism. If the religion they took it from had seven different versions, what makes them think the one they have is the correct one? What does it have to do with Science?

A better question would be what does "science" have to do with this thread?

[rory_20_uk]

Noooo! Atheists telling Christians what to believe, my pet peeve of all time. This is as bad as that thread where atheists said women shouldn't wear the burka because it's no in the koran.



First of, Jesus regulalry told people himself that they were going to "burn in hell". And as John said, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), so no that right isn't reserved to the father.

Furthermore, Matthew 7:1 is the verse most commonly taken out of context in the whole Bible. Although you did at least show the next bit, where he says sort yourself out, and then you can admonish your brother! That requires judgment. Paul himself was happy to use his judgment, as he wrote "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed" (1 Cor 5:3).



Being meek in spirit has nothing to do with your temporal power. Otherwise we should discard every said by Moses, David, and half the Old Testament characters! The point is they got where they were by trusting in God and not in their own strenght, hence why God always chooses the younger son as with Isaac and then Jacob etc, to show that they only get what the achieve by his power, not their own strength.



A better question would be what does "science" have to do with this thread?

OK from the beginning... you can't quote the bible like it is fact. Merely as one person is written down as saying something at some point in some versions does not make it a reliable document.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

OK from the beginning... you can't quote the bible like it is fact. Merely as one person is written down as saying something at some point in some versions does not make it a reliable document.

He didn't. He quoted it as the Bible. His interpretation of scripture so cited and the life lessons he drew therefrom were pretty doctrinaire. You are free to draw as much or as little from his points as you wish. Instead, you attack a text from which you know he draws a good deal of moral inspiration and lessons in living. A needless shot. You could simply have noted that you do not have the same faith in that text the Rhyf has and therefore choose your own path.

[Quid]

On the one hand, I could not care less what denomination (or non-denomination) a person running for public office has. On the other, I very much prefer someone running for office that has no connection to religion (i.e. an atheist). I do not believe that one can entirely ignore one's beliefs because they will invariably have some influence on the decison-making process.

Quid

[Monk]

Noooo! Atheists telling Christians what to believe, my pet peeve of all time. This is as bad as that thread where atheists said women shouldn't wear the burka because it's no in the koran.

You can believe whatever you like, the concepts of "belief" and "faith" exist outside of testable environments to the point that you do not have to prove anything to anyone in order to believe something. When you start demanding others to take your belief as the truth with no attempt or intent to present verifiable facts that back up your claim, that's where the situation gets a little tricky.

The question presented by this thread was simple, and infered a basic understanding of a hypothetical situation that I found fairly obvious. I answered the OP's question in regards to whether or not i'd vote for an atheist, not whether or not i'd vote for an extremist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK from the beginning... you can't quote the bible like it is fact. Merely as one person is written down as saying something at some point in some versions does not make it a reliable document.

I was working with the axiom that the person listening would be a Christian, and accept the authority of the Bible (since Beskar was appealing on those grounds himself). If you work from that axiom, you can prove that certian ideas/doctrines/whatever are false from a Christian perspective.

You can believe whatever you like, the concepts of "belief" and "faith" exist outside of testable environments to the point that you do not have to prove anything to anyone in order to believe something. When you start demanding others to take your belief as the truth with no attempt or intent to present verifiable facts that back up your claim, that's where the situation gets a little tricky.

The question presented by this thread was simple, and infered a basic understanding of a hypothetical situation that I found fairly obvious. I answered the OP's question in regards to whether or not i'd vote for an atheist, not whether or not i'd vote for an extremist.

Not sure what you're saying here but I've no intention to force my beliefs on anybody, nor am I "demanding" anyone accept's them. All I did was say I would be more likely to vote for someone who shares my outlook on things, and then pointed out why Beskar's interpretation of the scripture was (IMO) wrong.

[Beskar]

You can believe whatever you like, the concepts of "belief" and "faith" exist outside of testable environments to the point that you do not have to prove anything to anyone in order to believe something. When you start demanding others to take your belief as the truth with no attempt or intent to present verifiable facts that back up your claim, that's where the situation gets a little tricky.

Actually, that sums up my point far better. My examples were of when religious people are use their own religious justifications, such as enforcing the Bibles version of Creationism in a Science class, when there is no demonstrational evidence that this happened.

[rory_20_uk]

Sunday staff is more expansive and many small businesses cannot afford it, big businesses can so people will shop there for the rest of the week as well, small business loses customers and goes bankrupt. Things are not as simple as they seem.

I am aware of that. I'm not prepared to have my life dictated to me by government merely to prop up small shops.

If things were all open on Sunday, the cost of employees would not be greater.

[Skullheadhq]

I am aware of that. I'm not prepared to have my life dictated to me by government merely to prop up small shops.

If things were all open on Sunday, the cost of employees would not be greater.

People don't like working in the weekends, and will charge more, something small businesses without employees will not survive, or do these shopowners have to work 365 days in the week 24 hours a day just because you hate it when shops are closed on Sunday? There is something called a personal life, and you give them the choise between personal life and bankrupcy or work forever.

[rory_20_uk]

Or hire other people. I thought there's a shortage of jobs at the moment. Other family members? Shift system?

I work 8 hours a day and commute 5. I need to shop at the weekend - it's when I have my personal life.

If others are prepared to prop up inefficient shops as they're cute then fine. I'm not.

[The Celtic Viking]

Rory can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that when he said he'd be against banning all trade on Sundays, he said it in the context of religious reasons (in this case, not working on the sabbath). Arguing for banning it in secular terms is thus a red herring.

I voted "Europe and Yes".

[Tellos Athenaios]

Why not? This is very good to protect small businesses against big corporations.

Banning all trade on Sundays has less to do with “protecting small businesses against big corporations” than with “we are Christian. Once, we forced that through and now we are going to hold on to it until Judgment Day if we can.” At least in the UK “but it costs money to be open on Sundays/people want more money to work on Sundays” has nothing at all to do with it, plenty of small village (say, Pluckley in Kent) shops *are* open on Sundays in a commuter region. The same kind of shops which are open from early in the morning till late at night (6:00 - 23:00 or so) on a week day, too. And these shops aren't exactly large, or busy.

As long as shops over here need not stay open from 6 to 23 for to remain profitable I'm not feeling any sympathy for the “need protection from big corporations” kind of argument. To me, the only argument for keeping the ban is a purely religious/lifestyle one; which is a decision of a kind that shop-owners themselves should be free to make, and perhaps a municipality too, but definitely not a central government.

[Beskar]

Shops are open on a Sunday anyway, they just shut early.

[Skullheadhq]

Shops are open on a Sunday anyway, they just shut early.

In the Netherlands they're standard closed unless...

[Rahwana]

as an atheist myself, I'll vote for them
but for now, some politicians that have atheistic tendencies use a religion as cover... because muslim parties are traditionally hostile with them, they often masqueraded as christian, buddhist, or hindu