Would you vote for an Atheist?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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".

[Skullheadhq]

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

Did you miss the part where I said this is way too expansive for a one-man shop and that wages on Sunday are higher?
And is your uncle/niece/nephew preperared to work on sunday for a wage way lower than the local superstore who will give him more?

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

Did you miss the part where I said this is way too expansive for a one-man shop and that wages on Sunday are higher?

:Sigh: In short: I'm not for subsidising every business that otherwise would not otherwise function. You going to give jute farmers a helping hand as it's not a suitable crop for the UK?

And finally, as Celtic Viking points out, this is utterly a red herring that I was using as an example of things I would be against having forced through due to religion. As it happens I'd be against some regardless of religion.

[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.

[Monk]

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.

I didn't intend to imply you were doing anything of the sort. I was simply adding a bit of pittance on my interpretation of his (Beskar's) original point, which ties back to the original focus of the thread.

[Cute Wolf]

My country isn't muslim one , merely secular with a lot of muslims. But that's right, wahhabi muslims try to steal every rights from non muslims, especially atheists.

That anti atheists laws are enacted because political sentiments, as you can read in history, our founding fathers was dominated by secular muslims, christians, and atheists (stupid wahabi leaders can't got neither a lot of support nor diplomatic recognisement that time), and atheists in particular, are the one who spearhead the press for democracy (christians and secular muslims mostly only follows... Honestly). To curb their critical views of the governments, soeharto ban atheism. Simple.

[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.

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

It's a public forum. He chose to publicly quote and share his views and so did I. I'm not gate-crashing a service air my views to others.

Merely that one person likes something does not mean other views are censored and the individual punished - well not at the moment in the UK.

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

[Askthepizzaguy]

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

I'm not, though. I'm a small, petty man. When people disagree with me it frightens and confuses me. Why can't they accept that I'm awesome?

[rory_20_uk]

To the FRONTROOM!!!

[Rhyfelwyr]

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

Yes, but I prefer it when people make a reply that is relevant to what I am discussing.

I know you don't accept the authority of the Bible, but why come and point that out when two people are discussing something from a scriptural perspective? It's not like we're hearing some shocking new insight that is going to make us abandon the scripture in the middle of the argument.

It's like two people having a complicated discussion on the consequences of quantum theory, only for some guy to come and point out, "Hey guys, quantum theory is dubious!*". It's not really helpful for what they were discussing.

* I am not very aware of quantum theory so don't flame me if I'm wrong, 'tis just a hypothetical example

[rory_20_uk]

Ah, so you decide relevance? I'm more than happy for you two to swop psalms from the KJ Bible by PM if that's better.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, so you decide relevance? I'm more than happy for you two to swop psalms from the KJ Bible by PM if that's better.

Yes, I do decide on relevance, since I am once against using my magical quality for people to not address what I am saying, that I mentioned in the secularism thread. As I said, talking about the authority of the Bible is irrelevant when two people have agreed to work on that axiom.

I mean, what does the numbering of the psalms have to do with anything? I guess you are referring to the fact that as a Catholic, Seamus' Bible will number them differently from my KJV? The whole division of the Bible into chapters and verses is artificial, it makes them easier to reference, so what?

[rory_20_uk]

And there's different things in those two bibles - and they are very similar Christian ones. The Coptic bible has some very different number of books.

But then you head on to the subject of the Apocrypha and related non-canonical texts. Suddenly the rock solid precept is less absolute.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And there's different things in those two bibles - and they are very similar Christian ones. The Coptic bible has some very different number of books.

But then you head on to the subject of the Apocrypha and related non-canonical texts. Suddenly the rock solid precept is less absolute.

We're pretty much on the same ground, at least with western Christianity. It might have become an issue if someone quoted from Maccabees, but that was always unlikely. Certainly, it was of no relevance to the discussion Beskar and myself were having, since we were discussing the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.

[rory_20_uk]

Although |I can't claim to have read all the other Gospels in total, I think that they are very enlightening. To imagine that in c. 200 years only 4 gospel documents were written strikes me as highly implausible, and as we know that is not the case.

Then when one considers when the Bible was made canonical (more hundreds of years afterwards) it quickly becomes evident that it was early church politics rather than any other factor that is in play.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Although |I can't claim to have read all the other Gospels in total, I think that they are very enlightening. To imagine that in c. 200 years only 4 gospel documents were written strikes me as highly implausible, and as we know that is not the case.

Then when one considers when the Bible was made canonical (more hundreds of years afterwards) it quickly becomes evident that it was early church politics rather than any other factor that is in play.

But again, where is the relevance in that to what Beskar and myself were discussing? Certainly, all mainstream Christians today accept the same 4 Gospels as authoritative, and have done so for well over a millenia. We were working within that framework.

Also, the "church politics" stuff is mostly conspiracy theories, usually based around the Council of Nicea in 325, despite the fact that that council had nothing to do with drawing up the canon. I have no idea why people so commonly think the canon was drawn up at Nicea, but it happened at Hippo in 393. It was really just the consolidation of what was commonly accepted throughout the Christian world.

No conspiracy, no power politics. In fact, there's even a verse in one of Paul's Epistles which suggests they were accepted as scripture on part with the Old Testament while he was still alive!

[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