by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible
Elder,
The point is that there have been government officials who were atheists ( I mentioned seeing internet lists, but I hadn't noticed your amended list until now, where you mention Mao and others). I didn't mean to come through as denying your point, because I don't.
Ken,
Point taken, further I certainly do not have an ax to grind with famous atheist who have contributed greatly to society. Edison, Franklin and so forth. The list, imho is just skimming the surface of atheist that held said positions.
elderwho,
certainly. i was demonstrating that there is a disparity (most atheists are in scientific positions of notability) in government positions. and yes, you answered, there are some. why so few? not exactly sure. any ideas?
i also wanted to demonstrate that xians and other religions have no reason to feel encroached upon, and threatened and persecuted by secular authorities, because there are hardly any atheists in positions to bring persecution to xians, especially in our society, and in our time.
TS
TS,
The disparity is likely due to theist numbers greatly outweigh atheist numbers.
No, politicians worship at the alter of "faith" because simpletons understand that. They are not punished at the polls for believing in a big, bad guy in the sky....they do get punished for not believing.
Qcmbr
..sometimes I wonder whether their is room in an equal society for anyone religious!
By equal society, do you mean one where everyone arrives at the conclusion of something being a fact by use of the same paradigm? Your paradigm doesn't require the high level of proof a scientific paradigm requires. How CAN there be equality between them?
I find it strange that condescension, rudeness and sarcasm colour many of the comments.
I find people deciding they have sufficient knowledge to declare an entire branch of science to be totally wrong when they show consistant and persistent errors in their understanding of that branch of science condescending and rude. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with knowledge. Lack of knowledge can be fixed if a person wants to. The movement you need is on your shoulder.
I believe in God - it is probably impossible to prove that sort of thing here on a message board any more than its possible to prove love, hope or consciousness - these things only come by the living and experiencing. One day maybe those who are so quick to deride God and His adherants will have a one on one personal experience with Deity - at least you'll know what the other side of the arguement feels like - the one where you've had something incredibly precious and when you share it other people just take the mick.
Thank you Qcmbr. The fact you have to end it in a veilled threat involving your invisable friend says an awfull lot. Thank 'god' you are not one of the religionists who decide that THEY should do god's whup-assing for him. Personally though, the difference between 'maybe god will kill you as you are bad' and 'maybe I will kill you as god thinks you are bad' is very very slim.
elderwho
Your example of Hawke ignores the fact that agnostic and atheist are different.
You list Hitler at an atheist, which is a mistake on your part; http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html
And in your mad rush to prove SOME atheists have held office, not only do you make mistakes, you ignore the point. Do you seriously think someone who professed their atheism openly would become an American President in the next 10-20 years?
Ross
is about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican.
So nuns never get pregnant?
Deputy Dog
Yea right! By existing truth you must mean things like atheism, agnosticism. Darwinism?
No, and if you had the courtesy to read my post you would not need to ask that.
If you really think you don't rely on any presuppositions in your reasoning, you are engaging in something else Dr. Bahnsen is an expert in, self deception.
Nice to see you go straight to the ad hom attacks. That really does your 'credibility' no good what-so-ever.
Anyway, Darwinism could be falsified tomorrow. So could atheism. Your beliefs (if you were open enough to state them directly instead of dancing around like a cat in a hot tin roof the minute your apparent presuppositionalism gets mentioned) cannot be proved if they are as you represent them.
However, I suppose the training you've received highlights how important it is to use 'poison the well' stratagies the minute someone engages with you on the presuppositionalistic basis of your beliefs.
Either that, or people with your beliefs argue the same way. Each time I have discussed presuppositionalism with a presuppositionalist, there is always extreme reluctance on their part to make a clear and open admission of the basis of their beliefs, and desperate attempts to make it look like all forms of belief are based on equal levels of presuppositonalism.
If presuppostionalism was a particulary good or logical basis for knowledge it adherents would not need to try and avoid admitting to it, and their arguments would be based on the inherent logic of the belief paradigm, as distinct from inaccurate attacks on others.
[in response to tetra saying most atheists don't hate god]
Really, Have you talked to most atheists or is that a presupposition?
I don't believe in Santa Claus. How can I hate Santa Claus? It would be like hating Zeus. Hating something you don't believe exists is impossible. It would seem your 'poison the well' stratagy, trying to make it look like atheists don't believe in god because they hate god, is a failure, as it is illogical. However, as a presuppositionalist, something being illogical doesn't effect your belief in it, as your beliefs are already fixed and immovable.
Really, have you asked all or any infants if they believe in God when they are born, or is this another presupposition? (I guess you could call this a little research)
You are obviously ignorant of the maxim 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. If you assert that babies are born believing in god (which given the tabula rasa of an infant mind is an extraordinary claim), you have to back it up with proof to make it anything more than you waving your gums around in an entertaining fashion.
You also say you are a cop. Please list the reasons why a court investigating claims that god existed would find that god existed, i.e., the evidence that would be presented and used to back the claim. This evidence would have to fit in with standard rules of evidence. Go on...
how in an atheist universe you can account for morals, laws of logic and the like
Morals? Morals are easy to explain the development of. Almost universal ideas about murder and stealing being wrong are enlightend self-interest any society would develop (or not develop well as a society). I can agree not to steal or murder (even if it means I am losing out by not stealing or murdering) if I have assurance other members of the community hold the same values (so I am unlikely to be a victim of theft or murder). The potential benefit outweighs the potential risk. It is an ESS, an evolutionary stable stratagy. If you knew enough about the subject to pass comment on it in a meaningful and relevent fashion you would know this. But as your beliefs are based on the presumption of you being right, you obviously don't need to learn anything about a subject as you already know your opinion is right.
And such things did not evolve from nothing. You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, although even despite this fundamental weakness in your knowledge of the subject of origins, you have already concluded you are right BEFORE the examination of any evidence supporting your claims.
This is like a cop shooting someone 'cause they looked guilty. Nice.
And also, despite the fact you are incapable of telling me where your presupposed god came from, you are intellectually dishonest enough to accuse others of a major fault in your own belief structure.
So, in summary, you are right because you say you are, you don't need to provide proof to show you are right, as you know you are right. You don't need to learn anything as you already know you are right, and if you believe in the standard gamut of other beliefs presuppositionalists typically have, you believe you were predestined to be a member of the elect and will be saved. Thus your argument is;
Don't you think that such a belief system is egocentrical and assinine to an extreme? I though love was the distinguishing characteristic of Christians, not egomania and self-idolatry.
tetra
you clearly haven't really read my other replies to you
I would say it is probably more accurate to say he either is rude enough not to read your posts properly, or can't understand them. But then, he is right. Why does he need to read your posts? ROFLMAO
And in your mad rush to prove SOME atheists have held office, not only do you make mistakes, you ignore the point.
Relax Ab,
If you would have read the challenge, your point is mute. Obvisiously the one that asked the question was satisfied with my response, with his response to me, a "thank-you."
Do you seriously think someone who professed their atheism openly would become an American President in the next 10-20 years?
What does the above have to do with proving there was and are atheist that hold government office?
Hiter was born into Catholicism, but later rejected it. He never advocated atheism, but rather a Germanic neo-paganism.
That is a widely-believed myth. Hitler himself was non-religious, even though nominally Catholic. He sometimes encouraged neo-paganist ideas amongst his followers, but also persecuted professed pagans.
Hitler was on a big power trip, & when it comes down to it, that was about all he believed in. It might pay to get your facts right before you criticise other people.
Terry says: "You see that's how it works: The One Making the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM is the one who bears the responsibility to produce the EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. Not the other way around."
No, I don't see it that way. The atheist likewise makes the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that it is possible to prove a negative, therefore you are not relieved of the Burden of Proof that you require of the theist.
Is the causeless universe your EXTRAORDINARY PROOF that there is no God? How does it square away with the scientific view that the universe had a beginning? Also, how do you explain the origin of life and the complexity of nature without a superintelligence?
It's a fair cop! You did answer exactly as the question indicated... but I personally would have assumed that any schoolkid knows there have been SOME atheistic leaders, and that thus the question was using hyperbole to illustrate the comparative lack of atheistic leaders.
