By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - obama wants to be instrument of "god"

DTG on 26 July 2008
Sqrl said:
Rath said:
Sqrl said:

Honestly thats not even a serious position. Religion has definitely had it's role in the darker moments of man's history but just saying that all people who are religious are prone to be irrational isn't really a serious position at all and if I'm being honest borders on bigotry.

Every candidate is a person who like everyone else builds their political beliefs based on their life experience including their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Its just something you have to factor in to your choice on election day. To be honest I wouldn't vote for someone who would ignore their own moral values and principles, thats not the kind of person I want as president.

PS - I think we actually agree on the issues you listed, I just don't think being religious forces you into a set view on those things.

 

What I meant is following the bible literally often leads to irrational acts, trying to force something to be a law because it is in the bible is exactly what I do not want from any political leader because it means they are ignoring the situation today for the situation 2000 years ago.

I think that if a politician believes that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is wrong that they shouldn't try and enforce that belief on the wider community, they honestly do have to draw that line between personal beliefs and their actions for the community. A politician should be acting for the good of society, not to enforce their own beliefs on society.

 

OK, so if someone believes homosexuality is wrong for a reason other than their religion that would be ok with you then? I'm pretty sure you would disagree with them no matter what the basis for their reasoning was.

I mean it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you are saying is that all other ways a person's decision can be influenced are acceptable...but if their decision was based on religion...well in that case thats just not right!

Its obvious you don't agree with the morality of many religions on these subjects (ie the ones you listed above) but I think you are just being dramatic when you say it's irrational. An irrational view is one that lacks reason and they are absolutely using reason here, we just don't agree with that line of reasoning. I hate to delve too much into the religious debate but I want to remind you that you believe there is no god and that the bible is simply a book on morals that was last valid some 2000 years ago and they believe there is a god and that the bible is his word with timeless validity. Both are beliefs and until one is proven correct neither can be legitimately given the favored title of "most rational".

 

 

The only rational view is moral relativism and anything that is based upon subjective moral reasoning doesn't belong in the white house.

 



Around the Network
appolose on 26 July 2008

I'm leaning towards this as being an attempt to win over some of the conservative voting bloc. If he made what exactly he believed about Christianity much more known, he'd probably not gain any ground in that direction, as he's definitely a more liberal-leaning Christian. I'm not sure if he's going overboard and disgusting some of the more extreme leftists, but this is certainly more of a show for conservatives (I think).



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
kirby007 on 26 July 2008

How do they dare getting that note...
They won't end up in heaven



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Sansui on 26 July 2008

I'm not a religious person at all, but what I like about Obama is that even though he seems sincere in his religious beliefs, his legislation reflects a rational and human approach to government.

The man is pro-choice (pro life in the sense that he believes in prevention and family planning, but supports women's choice), and non-discriminatory towards gays and lesbians. He's got a very liberal voting record that is quite different from many conservatives who are guided by the religious right wing.

I was pretty pissed he didn't take more of a hardline stance on FISA, but McCain was too scared to even vote on that one :|

In any case... definitely pretty despicable that this private note was dug up and displayed for all to see.



marciosmg on 26 July 2008
DTG said:
Sqrl said:
Rath said:
Sqrl said:

Honestly thats not even a serious position. Religion has definitely had it's role in the darker moments of man's history but just saying that all people who are religious are prone to be irrational isn't really a serious position at all and if I'm being honest borders on bigotry.

Every candidate is a person who like everyone else builds their political beliefs based on their life experience including their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Its just something you have to factor in to your choice on election day. To be honest I wouldn't vote for someone who would ignore their own moral values and principles, thats not the kind of person I want as president.

PS - I think we actually agree on the issues you listed, I just don't think being religious forces you into a set view on those things.

 

What I meant is following the bible literally often leads to irrational acts, trying to force something to be a law because it is in the bible is exactly what I do not want from any political leader because it means they are ignoring the situation today for the situation 2000 years ago.

I think that if a politician believes that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is wrong that they shouldn't try and enforce that belief on the wider community, they honestly do have to draw that line between personal beliefs and their actions for the community. A politician should be acting for the good of society, not to enforce their own beliefs on society.

 

OK, so if someone believes homosexuality is wrong for a reason other than their religion that would be ok with you then? I'm pretty sure you would disagree with them no matter what the basis for their reasoning was.

I mean it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you are saying is that all other ways a person's decision can be influenced are acceptable...but if their decision was based on religion...well in that case thats just not right!

Its obvious you don't agree with the morality of many religions on these subjects (ie the ones you listed above) but I think you are just being dramatic when you say it's irrational. An irrational view is one that lacks reason and they are absolutely using reason here, we just don't agree with that line of reasoning. I hate to delve too much into the religious debate but I want to remind you that you believe there is no god and that the bible is simply a book on morals that was last valid some 2000 years ago and they believe there is a god and that the bible is his word with timeless validity. Both are beliefs and until one is proven correct neither can be legitimately given the favored title of "most rational".

 

 

The only rational view is moral relativism and anything that is based upon subjective moral reasoning doesn't belong in the white house.

 

There is one problem with your line of thought DTG: Moral relativism means there is no absolute morals, that everything is relative (which is just another word for subjective). Look for it in wikipedia if you disagree.

So, basically, you are contradicting yourself. You say that the only rational view is moral relativism, but also says that it doesn´t belong in the White House.



www.jamesvandermemes.com

Around the Network
Sqrl on 26 July 2008
DTG said:
Sqrl said:

OK, so if someone believes homosexuality is wrong for a reason other than their religion that would be ok with you then? I'm pretty sure you would disagree with them no matter what the basis for their reasoning was.

I mean it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you are saying is that all other ways a person's decision can be influenced are acceptable...but if their decision was based on religion...well in that case thats just not right!

Its obvious you don't agree with the morality of many religions on these subjects (ie the ones you listed above) but I think you are just being dramatic when you say it's irrational. An irrational view is one that lacks reason and they are absolutely using reason here, we just don't agree with that line of reasoning. I hate to delve too much into the religious debate but I want to remind you that you believe there is no god and that the bible is simply a book on morals that was last valid some 2000 years ago and they believe there is a god and that the bible is his word with timeless validity. Both are beliefs and until one is proven correct neither can be legitimately given the favored title of "most rational".

 

 

The only rational view is moral relativism and anything that is based upon subjective moral reasoning doesn't belong in the white house.

 

You can make absolute statements all you want but it doesn't make them true.  The fact is that if there is a god moral relativism is wrong, and until you prove that there isn't a god its actually you that is irrational for insisting that moral relativism is the only rational position.

Moral relativism is a rational position, but it is not the only one.

PS - MarcioSMG  also makes a great point.  Moral relativism is still a subjective set of morals, so what you're really saying is that morals have no place in the white house.  I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say though.
To Each Man, Responsibility
marciosmg on 26 July 2008

@sqrl - I don´t think he did it either. But, unfortunately, nowadays there is a lot of people who truly believe this.

Who think that religion should be completely wiped from the public arena (you can only display it in your own home and nowhere else).

But they forget that many issues such as morals, human rights, ethics can not be answered only through a simple scientific view.

Philosophy (I would say Theology too, but to me these two are intertwined) which isn´t "scientific" in the strictest sense is necessary.



www.jamesvandermemes.com

DTG on 26 July 2008
Sqrl said:
DTG said:
Sqrl said:

OK, so if someone believes homosexuality is wrong for a reason other than their religion that would be ok with you then? I'm pretty sure you would disagree with them no matter what the basis for their reasoning was.

I mean it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you are saying is that all other ways a person's decision can be influenced are acceptable...but if their decision was based on religion...well in that case thats just not right!

Its obvious you don't agree with the morality of many religions on these subjects (ie the ones you listed above) but I think you are just being dramatic when you say it's irrational. An irrational view is one that lacks reason and they are absolutely using reason here, we just don't agree with that line of reasoning. I hate to delve too much into the religious debate but I want to remind you that you believe there is no god and that the bible is simply a book on morals that was last valid some 2000 years ago and they believe there is a god and that the bible is his word with timeless validity. Both are beliefs and until one is proven correct neither can be legitimately given the favored title of "most rational".

 

 

The only rational view is moral relativism and anything that is based upon subjective moral reasoning doesn't belong in the white house.

 

You can make absolute statements all you want but it doesn't make them true. The fact is that if there is a god moral relativism is wrong, and until you prove that there isn't a god its actually you that is irrational for insisting that moral relativism is the only rational position.

Moral relativism is a rational position, but it is not the only one.

PS - MarcioSMG also makes a great point. Moral relativism is still a subjective set of morals, so what you're really saying is that morals have no place in the white house. I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say though.

The burden of proof is on you. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, does that mean he does or even "might"?

 

 



Sqrl on 26 July 2008
DTG said:
Sqrl said:

You can make absolute statements all you want but it doesn't make them true. The fact is that if there is a god moral relativism is wrong, and until you prove that there isn't a god its actually you that is irrational for insisting that moral relativism is the only rational position.

Moral relativism is a rational position, but it is not the only one.

PS - MarcioSMG also makes a great point. Moral relativism is still a subjective set of morals, so what you're really saying is that morals have no place in the white house. I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say though.

The burden of proof is on you. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, does that mean he does or even "might"?

So you're going to just ignore the fact that you contradicted yourself and move to another argument?  Only this time you're making sure the burden of proof is squarely placed on the other side. 

Tough luck for you though, because the burden of proof is always on the person making declarations of who is right and who is wrong.  I'm not telling you your view is wrong, while you are telling the overwhelming majority of the world's population their view is wrong.  Talk about self-importance.

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
marciosmg on 26 July 2008
DTG said:
Sqrl said:
DTG said:
Sqrl said:

OK, so if someone believes homosexuality is wrong for a reason other than their religion that would be ok with you then? I'm pretty sure you would disagree with them no matter what the basis for their reasoning was.

I mean it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you are saying is that all other ways a person's decision can be influenced are acceptable...but if their decision was based on religion...well in that case thats just not right!

Its obvious you don't agree with the morality of many religions on these subjects (ie the ones you listed above) but I think you are just being dramatic when you say it's irrational. An irrational view is one that lacks reason and they are absolutely using reason here, we just don't agree with that line of reasoning. I hate to delve too much into the religious debate but I want to remind you that you believe there is no god and that the bible is simply a book on morals that was last valid some 2000 years ago and they believe there is a god and that the bible is his word with timeless validity. Both are beliefs and until one is proven correct neither can be legitimately given the favored title of "most rational".

 

 

The only rational view is moral relativism and anything that is based upon subjective moral reasoning doesn't belong in the white house.

 

You can make absolute statements all you want but it doesn't make them true. The fact is that if there is a god moral relativism is wrong, and until you prove that there isn't a god its actually you that is irrational for insisting that moral relativism is the only rational position.

Moral relativism is a rational position, but it is not the only one.

PS - MarcioSMG also makes a great point. Moral relativism is still a subjective set of morals, so what you're really saying is that morals have no place in the white house. I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say though.

The burden of proof is on you. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, does that mean he does or even "might"?

 

 

That´s a phallacy argument. Santa Claus doesn´t exist. He is a creation of a certain culture that his image altered by the Coca-Cola company. Nobody believes that Santa exists. If you do, go to North Pole and check

Well, kids do. But, that´s because adults tell them that and they believe them.

Second, the existence of santa Claus is not metaphysics. Things like good or bad, right and wrong, etc, is. So you can´t just use science to discredit it.

And last but not least, burden of proof is on you, since you are the one that made the affirmation:

"The only rational view is moral relativism and anything that is based upon subjective moral reasoning doesn't belong in the white house."

 



www.jamesvandermemes.com