The REASON Why GOD Gave Us A CONSCIENCE Is To KEEP And/Or RESTORE Us,...

Heisenberg said:

I tend to believe polls, studies and surveys when they all report the same information. Polls can be selective, studies can be flawed, and surveys can have too small of a sample group, but no matter the method big or small, the results always show atheism is not seen as an acceptable position. As reported on the daily show recently, Americans distrust atheists more than they do terrorists. Any politician, no matter if he has the brain of Stephen Hawking, the looks of Johnny Depp, and the charisma of Oprah, can not get anywhere near a seat of power unless he also believes in God. How much more evidence do you need than our own president, the leader of our nation and it's policies, declaring atheists non-citizens? This is not just disapproval, but outright prejudice. Throw in the polices of organizations like the boy scouts and you have blatant discrimination. Where is it that you are seeing any sort of rejection of Christians on this level in America?

Also keep in mind there are many more homosexuals and immigrants than atheists, it only makes sense that you are more aware of their plight.

Click to expand...

Hepheastus420 said:

Keep in mind that there are many more Christians than atheists. About 75% of the US population openly admits to being a Christian. So when voting for a president these Christians want to vote for someone who holds the same beliefs as they do. So if a atheist and Christian are running against each other for president then the Christian president would already have about 75% of the US population voting for him/her. And if the atheist person promises to push forward in scientific discoveries then he would have most of the atheists votes. So if there is more athiests then Christians the athiest president would win. It's not discriminating against atheists. See what I'm saying heis?

This also brings up my other point of atheists not really being discriminated against at least not any more than religious people.


And about the polls they just give statistics but it's up to you to interpret them. Like about 75% of prisoners admit to being Christian (unfortunately). But there are too many questions too come from that. Such as did they go in christian (I doubt it). But an atheist would interpret that by saying that many Christians go to prison.

Sorry for dragging on this debate, ha.

Click to expand...

Heisenberg said:

Why should belief in a deity come into play when deciding matters of government politics? Aren't church and state suppose to be separate? Wasn't this country founded largely on the idea of being free from religious prosecution? I have been told by residents that in the UK a politician is likely to get laughed off the stage if they bring up belief in God. Saying most people are christian and tend to identify with Christian leaders is a lot different than what I said, which is a person could have perfect looks, wits, and charisma; could have excellent qualifications in every area that is important to leadership, yet still fail to get into office simply due to his disbelief in Jesus.

If we are going to further the debate, I am curious as to why you think people should personally confirm every scientific notion before believing it, yet seem to be okay with people placing belief in a deity or holy text with only the poorest of evidence. Believing that you have to say Hail Mary to atone for sin is a pretty specific belief based on only the weakest of evidence, some book says so. Belief that homosexuality is an affront to god requires discrimination and prejudice. Shouldn't one take every step to ensure a belief like this is justified? The only difference seems to be that holy people have invented a term for ungrounded beliefs; faith. If science invented a term that represented the practice of believing consensus on a theory without performing experiments and tests to confirm it, would you give them a pass as well?

Click to expand...

Hepheastus420 said:

It's not the believers fault that people use religion to gain more votes in a presidential campaign. Like I said they vote for that president because that president holds the same beliefs as them, they know the president doesn't approve of things that they don't approve of such as certain "sins".

Click to expand...

(referring to last question) is that not a hypothesis? If those atheists the I refer too simply state that some of the things they say are hypothesis and not yet fact then I would not mind if they state their beliefs. But if they talk about things such as the big bang (theory) as fact then it bothers me because when you ask them questions they have no answers but continue to say my belief is impossible because I can't explain all things that the bible states. BTW I'm not talking about all the atheists on RIU I'm also talking about people outside of Internet forums.

Click to expand...

Heisenberg said:

I can agree. I am not exactly trying to fault believers for voting with who they identify with, I was trying to demonstrate examples of disapproval based on prejudice. I don't feel it's right to think that matters of policy should deal with the concept of sin, but that was beside the point. What I was criticizing is the act of discriminating against a leader for his disbelief in Jesus, rather than his ability to lead. After all, an atheist could easily disapprove of the same concepts religious people consider sin.




Please see this as advice and not criticism, but I think you need to be a little less reluctant to step on others toes, and a little less sensitive when someone steps on yours. Just a little bit. We are participating in a debate forum that welcomes free thinking discussion. You have every right to speak your mind and challenge others so long as your words are not solely constructed to produce conflict or hurt feelings. We don't have to qualify all our statements with disclaimers and apologies, we simply have to conduct ourselves like adults.

Theory is a tricky word because people use it in different context and often within the same conversation. Theory in a scientific context means that it is an idea that has significant support. It means the idea has evidence, explanatory power and often the power to predict. Theory in the general context just means an explanation, not necessarily one with support. You and I have the same problem with people who site theories such as the big bang without really knowing what those theories entail. I think most of the skeptics here have stated that being able to explain your belief is as important as the belief itself. Someone who has truly studied the big bang will be the first to admit that is gives us relatively little answers, and many of those answers are suspect. Never the less, it is by far the most accurate explanation we currently have, and when people weigh it against creationist theism and say it has more support, they are justified.

Click to expand...