Do you believe in God?

[Pillo-san]

I'm not telling you what to think he is. I said, I don't think he is.

What is there to think about? Church is nothing but a show IMO. You don't need to go to Church to believe in God.
Just like standing in front of the camera saying something doesn't make it true. I could have told you I was Christian and you would have never known unless, someone who knows me called me out. I say God bless America, cause it's what everyone says. Get where I'm going?

I stand by my opinion. But just like God, I might change my mind if enough evidence is proven.

I don't know, what do you see? I never pushed my beliefs on anyone, I'm not telling you to agree with me either. All I did was express mine. I'm curious why you want to assume I think that. And to be blunt some people on both sides do...

No, I cant really express myself in a way so that you would understand, it was not meant for you to really answer stuff but to think about what you said about Obama to make you see for yourself how odd what you said was.

If you are saying that you are believing in something but deep down you do not it is your own business, why should someone judge you that you said a "white lie" like that, especially if they don't know you lie about it.

What we see is that you kinda behave like some religions fanatic. He has to show everyone that he believes in something and everyone else is wrong. That is what I see. And that is some people..

Just like those religious fanatics, some people just need to be more open minded and don't discard everything at first glance.

Evidence about God? Probably not gonna happen, everything I have heard about stuff like that is that it is highly personal. Even if you would have seen God or something supernatural how would you prove it to others?

I have no proof, and I don't know, but I am open minded about that God maybe exists.
And what about a President that is Openly Jew or Muslim, would he be allowed to be elected?
That I would like to get an answer from you.

 

[ryzno]

And what about a President that is Openly Jew or Muslim, would he be allowed to be elected?
That I would like to get an answer from you.

As long as they abide to the constitution, I honestly don't think it should matter.

 

[mistersafeway]

"You can keep your doctor" "Premiums will be $2500+ cheaper." etc... etc... etc...
IMO Obama is a flat out liar(that is why I don't believe/trust a word he says).

Is he really a liar on that subject? I don't know, but try looking at a state that didn't say 🤬 the Medicaid expansion like yours did if you really live in Georgia. That only took me a couple of minutes to research, BTW, and there are plenty of other problems with Obama which don't include one of the few good things he's done, the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known (often derogatorily) as Obamacare.

If Trump ends up lieing like him, I'll have an equal amount of distaste for him.

Would talking about ending corruption then not doing so be lying like Obama or would it be worse? How about claiming to be against the establishment? You see, he said both of those things on the campaign trail and has since given lobbyists major positions, including a treasury secretary who has worked at Goldman Sachs (a company Trump was massively against early on in his campaign ) and ran his own bank in California which illegally foreclosed on homes, and Trump has also picked members of the Republican establishment for major positions. So, on the one hand you have Obama, who possibly lied and possibly didn't, but definitely got shafted by the Republicans (well, you (US citizens) did), and Trump who lied, no ifs, ands or buts.

 

[xyloscissor]

As long as they abide to the constitution, I honestly don't think it should matter.

Also for @Pillo-san

We have always elected a Christian or claimed Christian into that office, as I was saying before, JFK was a Catholic which was difference from the voting public, I mentioned Obama because I'm not so sure of his sincerity but backed off that a little.

The point is simple, it matters to the voting public.

 

[xyloscissor]

Sorry for the DP.

There is this argument going on in the election thread and it just made me realize something. As @Danoff insists the u.s. is a secular country and I pointed out we are full of Christians...

Even though we elect based on religion we expect those elected to follow are law which clearly states a separation between church and state. There is a reason for that

Added for special effect lol.

I believe we are a predominantly Christian Nation represented by a secular form of government which insures liberty for all. That should dispel any notion of democracy as far as I'm concerned. We'll give equal rights to that one lord of the spaghetti monster who lives in Montana.

 

[mistersafeway]

Sorry for the DP.

There is this argument going on in the election thread and it just made me realize something. As @Danoff insists the u.s. is a secular country and I pointed out we are full of Christians...

Even though we elect based on religion we expect those elected to follow are law which clearly states a separation between church and state. There is a reason for that

Their religion should never be the reason to vote for a candidate, policies are what matters. I'd vote for an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, or pretty much any religion. I think the only religious beliefs that would make me not vote for someone are fundamentalist beliefs, which pretty much means only Scientologists would never get my vote, as they seem to be more than happy to do whatever they're told by the "Church".

 

[xyloscissor]

Should be and reality are two very different things. It's not because "the church" whatever church that means is dictating, it's because we vote for people with similar values to our own. Who would not want to do that?

Now it is true for instance where I live that the majority of Catholics will pull the dem party line lever in the poles but I don't think their church says if they don't they will burn in hell.

 

[mistersafeway]

Should be and reality are two very different things.

Obviously.

It's not because "the church" whatever church that means is dictating,

You seem to have missed the point on that one, I meant the "Church" of Scientology, and that a politician who is part of that "religion" would essentially be their puppet.

it's because we vote for people with similar values to our own. Who would not want to do that?

Apparently you, sharing a religion isn't the same as having similar values, that's why I said that you should vote based on someone's policies. For example, do you share similar values to the Lord's Resistance Army just because you're both Christians? Extreme example, I know, but it makes the point.

 

[xyloscissor]

I missed the scientology part, oops.

Perhaps you are not familiar with america? Being a Christian is almost a given so obviously we are looking for much more than that to affirm similar values however, if the man isn't Christian to start off with it seems quite clear he will be dismissed. For that particular office of course.

Let's be honest here, does anyone believe that Hillary or Donald are Christian?

 

[mistersafeway]

Perhaps you are not familiar with america?

Yes, I am, including when it comes to politics. I'm also well aware that you guys elect people based on superficial nonsense, at least if how often the elected officials barely agree with the people on anything is evidence. Look at polling data on universal background checks for gun purchases and cannabis legalisation for examples.

if the man isn't Christian to start off with it seems quite clear he will be dismissed.

That's where I see the problem, belief should be viewed as irrelevant when going to vote, like if there's a vote between an openly fascist Christian and a progressive atheist... there shouldn't even be a question of who to vote for there.

Let's be honest here, does anyone believe that Hillary or Donald are Christian?

Why wouldn't I just take their word for it? Seems the voting public does every election, if Christianity is all that important.

 

[xyloscissor]

So we can't be who we are because someone on the net says it's not ok. It is a matter of liberty which is something we cherish above all else.

Thanks for all the put down though 👍

I never said only a Christian should be voted into the position

 

[LeMansAid]

Their religion should never be the reason to vote for a candidate, policies are what matters. I'd vote for an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, or pretty much any religion. I think the only religious beliefs that would make me not vote for someone are fundamentalist beliefs, which pretty much means only Scientologists would never get my vote, as they seem to be more than happy to do whatever they're told by the "Church".

Ah, Scientology. Here again to expose the hypocrisy shown in how people view it in relation to the old religions. The religions that are currently more valid by a factor of zero.

Ironically, I suspect it's pretty much the same thing as what makes people in America insist on voting for supposed Christians. They're just so used to it being that way. I feel confident that if any of those "acceptable" religions of yours was new, and was what a potential leader followed, you'd show just as much resolve against them. Call them all cults, call them all religions - whatever, but call them the same thing as each other, because they're really no different to each other. When attempting to brand Scientology as contextually invalid, there's an implied validating of the others. A completely unjustified validating. Just because the old religions may have lulled much of the public by having followers with watered-down behaviours, and through the simple effect of the passage of time, doesn't make them any more valid. It also doesn't make them any less dangerous, by default.

 

[mistersafeway]

I never said only a Christian should be voted into the position

No, you didn't, but you at the very least implied that only a Christian would be. If you don't see a problem with that then I don't know if there's any point trying to have a discussion with you.

Just because the old religions may have lulled much of the public by having followers with watered-down behaviours, and through the simple effect of the passage of time, doesn't make them any more valid. It also doesn't make them any less dangerous, by default.

That's true, which is why I tried to make it clear that I have a problem with fundamentalists and that the only Scientologists I've heard of who aren't are those who deconverted.

 

[LeMansAid]

No, you didn't, but you at the very least implied that only a Christian would be. If you don't see a problem with that then I don't know if there's any point trying to have a discussion with you.



That's true, which is why I tried to make it clear that I have a problem with fundamentalists and that the only Scientologists I've heard of who aren't are those who deconverted.

No more wrong with the religion per se then - just your perception of the statistics in regards to the fundamentalism of it's followers? That you put religion in quotations seems to suggest otherwise....

I meant the "Church" of Scientology, and that a politician who is part of that "religion" would essentially be their puppet.

You don't think that you are merely used to accounting for the religion-influenced behaviours of people of other faiths, and that the behaviour of Scientologists sticks out that much more because it's not got the weight of time and familiarity behind it?

I'll grab from a Scaff post...

Yes the US is a secular nation (which is not the same as atheist), however Bush is a born again Christian and was quite clear that he believed he was acting on God's instructions.

That's easily loony enough for me to put it alongside fundamentalist ideals, but almost certainly what a (I assume) very smart person advising Bush saw as a stance that would resound with the greatest number of voters. That's a fair chunk of equal-to-fundamentalism right there in the Christian sphere, in quite a contemporary time frame. Imagine how fundamentalist the people of other religions were in the first 50 years of those religions' existence.

I know it's feels ridiculous to call Scientology a real religion, and that's precisely why we should do exactly that. To re-affirm to ourselves that there is no more logic to a belief in all of the old religions than there is in Scientology. For both atheists and for those that laud the Lord, the least we can all do is aim to be consistent, and give all religions an equally wide or narrow berth respectively.

 

[mistersafeway]

No more wrong with the religion per se then - just your perception of the statistics in regards to the fundamentalism of it's followers? That you put religion in quotations seems to suggest otherwise....

You don't think that you are merely used to accounting for the religion-influenced behaviours of people of other faiths, and that the behaviour of Scientologists sticks out that much more because it's not got the weight of time and familiarity behind it?

I'll grab from a Scaff post...

That's easily loony enough for me to put it alongside fundamentalist ideals, but almost certainly what a (I assume) very smart person advising Bush saw as a stance that would resound with the greatest number of voters. That's a fair chunk of equal-to-fundamentalism right there in the Christian sphere, in quite a contemporary time frame. Imagine how fundamentalist the people of other religions were in the first 50 years of those religions' existence.

I know it's feels ridiculous to call Scientology a real religion, and that's precisely why we should do exactly that. To re-affirm to ourselves that there is no more logic to a belief in all of the old religions than there is in Scientology. For both atheists and for those that laud the Lord, the least we can all do is aim to be consistent, and give all religions an equally wide or narrow berth respectively.

Point well made, and I accept your reasoning. 👍

Still, the most important thing for me remains fundamentalism, if a politician is one then I couldn't vote for them, if they aren't then it's policy substance all the way.

-

What I was trying to say earlier with the 'fascist Christian, progressive atheist' comment (that may be missed by some or even all, as I wasn't that clear with the wording and it may just read as 'religion bad' to religious people) is that religion is low on the list of priorities for someone who genuinely cares about how the world is run, just replace progressive with whatever political ideology you subscribe to and make the fascist someone who shares your religious beliefs, while making your political ally of an opposing religion. If you'd vote for the person promising to oppress you and others massively then you need to rethink how highly you value religion in politics.

 

[xyloscissor]

No, you didn't, but you at the very least implied that only a Christian would be. If you don't see a problem with that then I don't know if there's any point trying to have a discussion with you.

For now would be is a fair statement, not sure why you want to shoot the messenger? Personally I don't consider it a make or break for a candidate but in reality it very much is.

One thing is for sure, in the U.S. we have the freedom of religion and we exercise that freedom.

 

[mistersafeway]

For now would be is a fair statement, not sure why you want to shoot the messenger? Personally I don't consider it a make or break for a candidate but in reality it very much is.

When did I shoot the messenger? I asked if you saw a problem with the situation. I notice you didn't give an answer, although it seems like you are at least open to the idea that it's a problem.

 

[Imari]

No. I've expressed why in the election thread many times...

"You can keep your doctor" "Premiums will be $2500+ cheaper." etc... etc... etc...
IMO Obama is a flat out liar(that is why I don't believe/trust a word he says).

I like how you said no to the question, and then proceeded to give reasons why you didn't like him. You've sure convinced me...

If Trump ends up lieing like him, I'll have an equal amount of distaste for him.

This really has nothing to do with it one way or the other. Disliking one does not mean that you like the other, or vice versa. The default is that each is judged on their own merits or lack thereof. A lot of people don't because they're partisan, but I assume that people here are sensible enough to think on their own (at least until they show me otherwise).

Perhaps you are not familiar with america? Being a Christian is almost a given...

Not as much as you might think. ~70% is a solid majority, but it also means that you can't exactly just assume that someone is Christian.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Let's be honest here, does anyone believe that Hillary or Donald are Christian?

They are if they say they are. You can't police what's inside people's heads, and you can't tell them that they don't believe what they think that they believe.

 

[xyloscissor]

When did I shoot the messenger? I asked if you saw a problem with the situation. I notice you didn't give an answer, although it seems like you are at least open to the idea that it's a problem.

I don't have a problem with it no. People can vote for whatever reason they choose, I do have a problem with who is allowed to vote on that level however.

I'll say it again, we have freedom of religion and we exercise that freedom.

 

[mistersafeway]

I don't have a problem with it no.

So you're fine with bigotry as the basis for who wins elections in your country? From the link:

[mass noun] Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself

That was why I was asking, realise it or not you are saying it's perfectly acceptable for a whole country to be bigoted to the point that its politicians have to claim their religion as Christianity to even stand a chance of being elected, a country which was at least heavily influenced by people who weren't Christian, and who very specifically stated that there shall be no religious test for office. Apparently the "modern" American population disagrees with them and wants to live in the dark ages... unless it's all a coincidence, that is, in which case I'm completely fine with it, and look forward to seeing the first openly Islamic candidate for the presidency in 2020.

 

[xyloscissor]

Only declared atheist democrats should be allowed to vote, better?

If what you say is true, all that will peacefully come to be in due time, it's not the deal you are making of it tbh.

 

[Soulfresh_ACV]

Maybe ...

Spoiler: language warning

 

[mistersafeway]

Only declared atheist democrats should be allowed to vote, better?

Are you seriously suggesting that a) I want to replace one form of bigotry with another and b) that the Democratic Party is on the left!? The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, sure, but for the most part they're to the right of, for example, our Conservative party.

If what you say is true, all that will peacefully come to be in due time, it's not the deal you are making of it tbh.

You may not think that, but you're not part of the oppressed group, are you? Anybody who isn't a Christian faces an uphill battle to get into any public office in your country the moment they're honest about it. All this in a country where some of the loudest voices claiming to be persecuted are Republican and Christian.

 

[huskeR32]

So we can't be who we are because someone on the net says it's not ok.

Your lack of quoting makes it hard to know what this was directed at, but I find it supremely ironic coming from the person whose previous post said this:

Let's be honest here, does anyone believe that Hillary or Donald are Christian?

--

Only declared atheist democrats should be allowed to vote, better?

Who said anything that even remotely suggested this should be the case?

 

[Touring Mars]

Maybe ...

Spoiler: language warning

The title of the video you linked to contains offensive language normally covered by our swear filter, hence I've edited your post to put the link inside spoiler tags with an appropriate warning.

 

[xyloscissor]

Anybody who isn't a Christian faces an uphill battle to get into any public office in your country the moment they're honest about it.

Are you suggesting there should be some form of affirmative action placed in our election system? People vote their conscience and in doing so there is a mob rule against minority in voting, how can you fix that? As in the election thread people seem to want a more democratic approach but what is it? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

If anything I would think requesting a more republic approach is in order.

 

[mistersafeway]

Are you suggesting there should be some form of affirmative action placed in our election system?

Not at all, pointing out that there's a problem doesn't imply a solution, and I can't think of one that's that easy. That's also a problem with humanity in general, people will try to cling to any "solution" rather than searching for one that actually solves things.

Education is the only way to solve this sort of problem, teaching people that gays/atheists/people with other religions are just that, people.

 

[xyloscissor]

It should not be a problem though right? Being a democracy and all. And yes I tried to speak at length about education in this very thread and was shot down.

 

[mistersafeway]

It should not be a problem though right?

Yes, kind of. If Christianity is a prerequisite, then yes, it's a problem. If it isn't a major factor then sure, no problem at all. Imagine if Obama hadn't been elected purely because of his skin colour, that'd be a problem, right? Just because bigotry is less obvious, doesn't make it fine. Same goes for Hillary being a woman, but that wasn't why she wasn't elected.

Being a democracy and all.

Uh... not exactly, but a democracy would likely descend into anarchy rapidly. See the polling data I mentioned earlier, in a democracy you'd have legal weed and slightly tighter laws on who can have guns.

And yes I tried to speak at length about education in this very thread and was shot down.

Don't remember the specifics, so can't say why that happened. Maybe I'll get shot down, we'll see.

 

[xyloscissor]

Don't remember the specifics, so can't say why that happened. Maybe I'll get shot down, we'll see.

The premise presented to me was one that education must directly correlate with the eradication of religion. Nonsense to me because everyman has a right to his own conscience. It's one of those things where freedom is all fine and good until I exercise mine.