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"

Sky Render on 26 July 2008

The number one rule for keeping discussion civil is to never bring up religion (items number 2, 3, and 4 being politics, sexuality, and ethnicity, though not necessarily in that order). It's just opening up a can of worms and begging for somebody to eventually invoke Godwin's Law and kill the whole discussion. So, in the interest of keeping things civil around here, can we please let this topic die off quick? Just a request in the interest of maintaining some semblance of peacefulness around here.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 July 2008
DTG said:
Sqrl said:
Rath said:
Sqrl said:
Rath said:
As an atheistic liberal the fact that he wrote that doesn't annoy me at all. He has full rights to be religious in his private life and to believe what he wants - as long as it does not cross into his political policies.

Whats so wrong with that? Deeply religious people are almost always guided in their daily lives by their religious beliefs. Why shouldn't Obama draw strength and guidance from those beliefs?

Because religion often leads to irrational and damaging acts - for example illegalizing stem cell research, prostitution and gay marriage.

@MrBubbles. Teehee.

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.

 

 

The problem with that is that someone who has achieved a higher plane of thinking by embracing and believing in moral relativism would know that such factors are irrelevant when choosing a president. There is no such thing as right or wrong but merely ends by which one achieves their own self interests. Intelligence should be the only qualifying factor of a leader that embraces such moral relativism and not an artificial belief system that simply divides a country by only catering to certain groups that share that belief system.

Weren't you someone who just recently said the US was as evil and as "bad" as Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia... and now your saying there is no good or bad? 

Interesting.

 



Kasz216 on 26 July 2008
Sansui said:
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.

Afraid?  Or busy running for president.  I mean was Obama "afraid" when he didn't vote on a load of bills?

McCain's stances on Fiza are pretty clear.  Unlike Obamas.  Who's opinion seems to have changed as fast as his opinion on NAFTA... since he was promoting in Germany "Free trade with no boundries".

Which is a world wide NAFTA.  Which is kinda odd from the guy threatening to pull out of Nafta during the primaries.  Instead of rengotiate it like the people who voted for him wanted... he wants to expand it.



Kasz216 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"?

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas



Rath on 26 July 2008
Sqrl said:
DTG said:

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 fact that something is possible does not make it rational, I may believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster but that does not make it a rational belief.

 



Around the Network
PS360ForTheWin on 26 July 2008

heres an intresting question, will america ever have an atheist president?



Rath on 26 July 2008
PS360ForTheWin said:
heres an intresting question, will america ever have an atheist president?

Society is becoming progressively more secular and athiesm is becoming more accepted. I think it will happen but for America it will take several more decades before people are willing to accept an athiest president.

 



Sky Render on 26 July 2008

Congratulations, Kasz, you invoked Godwin's Law. Was that intentional?



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

superchunk on 26 July 2008

As a liberal and a non Christian, who the F cares? He made a very basic and completely normal prayer. I hope anyone who is religious makes the same type of requests of God.



DTG on 27 July 2008
Sqrl said:
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.

 

 

I studied psychology. The statistical norm does not constitute normality. If tomorrow on every began showing the symptoms of schizophrenia would that suddenly make it "normal"? Saying that you believe in God, an entity lacking any foundation in physical reality or logic is no different than telling your psychiatrist that you think parasites are spreading underneath your skin. They're both delusions. One happens to be a popular delusion which is why it doesn't warrant psychiatric treatment as another one does.