Poll: If Jesus ran for president, would you vote for him?

[Shycte]

I live in a not-all so good town where diffrent churces help poor people.

Do they make these people sit through the ceremony first ?

Not to my knowledge no.

 

[Shycte]

Snip

I must beg you to stop putting words that aren't mine in my mouth. I never said that all chaity is based on religon, I said that religon do a lot a charity.

Also, you claim that religon is holding back genetically manipulated crops which isn't fair to say. Crazy people are holding back that kind of science. You can not logiclly hold a religion responsible for the crimes of it's believers, just like you can't hold a country responsible of the crimes of it's citizens. You of all people should understand this.

As I first said, religon is something highly personal and is not to be judged by others. You can judge a man by his actions but never by his religon. Just as you can't judge a religon by that mans action.

For your utopian dreams there, our plantet can not survive if everyone comes up to European standard. There aren't enough reasources and let me tell you this. If Africa is ever going to compete with the rest of the world, our standards will have to go down more than their will rise. As for your "if we gave them technology..." claim, that is not how economics works, that is not how the African politics looks like and that is not how any part of the real world looks like. Things aren't that easy. Giving Africa technology and food isn't the answer.

Religion has no uses that we cannot achieve through other means, i think you fail to see that.

Now this is the intersing part, because you don't know that. You said that understanding how the universe works make you feel good. Now if someone feels that beliving in "Love thy neighbour" makes him feel good then go ahead.

Relgion doesn't have to do anything better than something else to justifice it's existence. Your crusade is without a real meaning.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I'd recommend you read this deconstruction of "The God Delusion" (by an atheist) and how it fails as a book.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/?hp

"I find Dawkins? ?The God Delusion? stimulating, informative, and often right on target. But it does not make a strong case for atheism."

No because it is a strong case for agnostic atheism. Dawkins makes a rather one dimensional ladder of 1-7, only in the theist - atheist dimension, where 1 and 7 are held for gnostics, the people who know, and he says that he is a 6 himself which is the agnostic part of the dimension.

So all that Gary Gutting does is turn up the contrast of Dawkins' book.

 

[biGBum333]

yes. despite what people might say i'm sure he'd be better than most politicians.

 

[michiehoward]

Ahhh I think President would be a huge step down for Him.

 

[Duruznik]

Of course. The guy runs a smooth social platform, what can I say?
(I'm talking about the whole "help the poor" thing)

 

[Jadak]

I definitely would. No doubt about it.

Also, the Bible doesn't teach that gays are bad; it teaches that gay acts are bad.
.

So gays are fine so long as they just stay in the closet where they belong? Much better ...

 

[Broken Orange]

It isn't that I wouldn't vote for him, but I think he would get his rep ruined by FOX news how he is a damn liberal with his policies on border control and the budgets. Plus, his oppendent could find how he had relations with a whore.

 

[Jewrean]

Why not 1 up this pole and ask which fictional character we would want as President / Leader of the world / your country?

Just for the hell of it I'm going to go with Lex Luthor. That evil bastard is smart.

 

[QuadFish]

By the way, Jesus never said gays are bad. Ever. Once. And he often implied that he has an opposite view on them.

Really? That's completely awesome. Does that mean the the WBC is wrong about PR and the Bible?

 

[Avalanche91]

Well, I don't think Jesus supports capitalism. America loves capitalism. Do the math.

That being said, he was a very charismatic leader and good at getting the support of the masses.
But I don't think his viewpoints would give him much of a chance with the american public today.

Also; BC homosexuality wasn't as frowned upon, so I doubt Jesus would mind gay's very much, which would also cause a hilarious controversy with all the close minded catholics.

 

[Iconoclasm]

Since it is sketchy at best that anyone existed in history with his particular specs, I'd say no.

Besides, I think we've seen what his "party" is capable of. I think I, and my colleagues in the natural sciences, have got this.

On a related note, we'd love more funding - you know, to actually provide real answers to questions about the Universe and the like. In other words, actual concerns.

So, yeah. Please vote for more funding to natural science programs and less to these quietist programs.

 

[ender003]

"No - 64.7%"

Good job, Escapists. You give me hope.

 

[Shycte]

I never said that you did, i simply remarked that religion is not at all needed for charity.

Of cause there are other people who oppose genetically manipulated food, but the specific examples i mentioned were purely motivated by religion and therefore it is both the person's and the religion's fault.

I can most certainly judge a man by his religion, If i can judge a man from any of his thoughts i can also judge him by his religion. A man's thoughts and a man's beliefs are what lead to his actions, and therefore a man should be judged by all of them.

I am not a fool, i know that there is no way that out planet can support the current population, therefore science could also be used as a way to control the population (This way conjure vision of Nazi's and concentration camps in you mind, but that is not what i am proposing)

What, pray do tell, can religion be used that science and secular humanism cannot provide?


And finally What Crusade? I am simply arguing my case, i see no Crusade here.

Well, I guess we look at the world diffrently, I think I man's religon and a mans thoughts a personal to him and he should be judged by his actions alone. I think we have to agree to disagree on that point because I don't feel like we are getting anywhere.

Although, I am curios. What are you suggesting that science do to control the population?

 

[Jonabob87]

I'd recommend you read this deconstruction of "The God Delusion" (by an atheist) and how it fails as a book.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/?hp

"I find Dawkins? ?The God Delusion? stimulating, informative, and often right on target. But it does not make a strong case for atheism."

No because it is a strong case for agnostic atheism. Dawkins makes a rather one dimensional ladder of 1-7, only in the theist - atheist dimension, where 1 and 7 are held for gnostics, the people who know, and he says that he is a 6 himself which is the agnostic part of the dimension.

So all that Gary Gutting does is turn up the contrast of Dawkins' book.

You can't have agnostic atheism, it's a case for agnosticism.

Given that he vehemently labels everyone who disagrees with him as a "Christian" like it's a swearword, he most definitely would wipe it out in any way he could.

You are full of crap.

You've never read any of his books, and you don't have a clue as to his stance.

I've watched his TV shows, he has borderline disgust for people who believe in God (any God). He continues to crusade for atheism as if religion is a terrible force for evil in the UK, when the fact of the matter is that religion is all but dead in the UK. He's an arrogant ass with an inferiority complex who believes wholeheartedly that he's more intelligent than pretty much everyone he meets.

I've read much about Richard Dawkins, and I've concluded he's not worth the wasted time (not to me anyway).

You are drawing conclusions that he has disgust without fact to back them. As far as him believing that he is more intelligent than most people is because he probably is. He is a leader in the field of biology, he has several best selling books, and he is a world renown scientist and front man for logic. If you want to see him talk on the same level as someone watch his discussions with Lawrence Krauss (who is amazing btw).

I'd recommend you read this deconstruction of "The God Delusion" (by an atheist) and how it fails as a book.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/?hp

First of all, this "deconstruction" argues largely on the basis of philosophy which i don't accept as relevant to the case, also it does not say that it "Fails as a book" the author summarises his view on the book at the bottom.

I find Dawkins' "The God Delusion" stimulating, informative, and often right on target. But it does not make a strong case for atheism. His case is weak because it does not take adequate account of the philosophical discussions that have raised the level of reflection about God's existence far above that at which he operates.

Dawkins is not a philosopher and has never pretended to be. Even if we accept that it doesn't make a good case for atheism (which i do not accept) He still says that it is an informative book that is right on many things.

You don't think that philosophy is relevant to the question of whether or not God exists? The debate itself is ENTIRELY based on philosophy, explaining why Dawkins himself tries to philosophise God out of existence in the book.

The purpose of the book is to prove that God does not exist, and it's a purpose that it doesn't fulfill. It doesn't achieve what it sets out to achieve. It's a failure.