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

[Boris Goodenough]

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

Why can't you have it? Give reasons not assertions.

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.

It doesn't say that, he even says that it won't convert anyone and it is in fact preaching to the choir.

 

[floppylobster]

Seems like a nice enough guy. Maybe if he did run he could straighten out some of the many misconceptions about him. (Like that he was the literal 'son of god').

 

[6037084]

having a person who claims to be the son of god as president is not a good idea

 

[Jonabob87]

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

Why can't you have it? Give reasons not assertions.

ag·nos·ti·cism
   /ægˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2.
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

a·the·ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One is uncertain, the other is certain. They are opposites, they can't be one in the same.

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.

It doesn't say that, he even says that it won't convert anyone and it is in fact preaching to the choir.

He proves Dawkins philosophical assertions wrong, therefore the book fails at disproving the existence of God.

 

[Cliff_m85]

This is a poll I've been curious about; knowing that a good amount of the American population that'll vote for someone because of their religion or how often they say god bless America.

So, Jesus Christ returns and runs for president.
If you need to know anymore, his stances are based on biblical teachings. Love thy neighbor (ie Mexico), gays are bad, etc.

Absolutely not. Especially since he'd be terrified of the technological advances we've made. Also because no one should really support zombies.

 

[Outright Villainy]

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?

See here's the thing: The bible wasn't written by Jesus.

The bible does say in several parts that homosexual acts are wrong, and it also says a bunch of other crazy shit is wrong (like wearing cotton), but none of those were the teachings of Jesus.

OT: Honestly, I know nothing about the guy, nor does anyone else really. Historical accuracy isn't really on his side, so I'd wait and see what the actual man was like before making a decision.

 

[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.

In the Book Dawkins flatly states that it is a scientific question, either God exists or he doesn't, this isn't metaphysics it doesn't matter if we will never have the ability to know if he exists, that doesn't mean that it isn't a scientific question, Dawkins says this and makes no attempt at a philosophical debate.

Dawkins also addresses this "Hurp durp the only reasonable stance is Agnostism, the argument is several pages long, read the fucking book before you deign to comment on it.

Then maybe you should read the article kiddo, before you make assumptions about what it says.

 

[mb16]

no as i would be voting for a fictional character

 

[LorChan]

Jesus was actually a pretty cool dude. The only thing he preached against was hatred.
Being an atheist, I don't believe he was the son of god, but he wasn't really a bad person, and 'gays are bad' certainly wasn't on the agenda.

But I'm not an American citizen, so maybe it won't matter what I think!

 

[Shycte]

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?

Indeed.

It is actually not so much science as it is politics, some countries *Cough*africa*Cough*india*Cough* will have to impose a birth-cap like that China has or had, i cannot recall.

Many, in fact most families down there are having as many as 10 children, this is totally unsustainable and completely irresponsible, and if the population will not reduce that birthrate voluntarily, it will have to be imposed on them. This may seem very nasty and fascistic but it is that or the destruction of our species.

Okay.. So maybe two children per parents? You know, two childs.

Now, I'm crazy liberal so I don't like the thought of the government saying no to childs at all. But it creates a intresting dilemma, how far are we ready to go to make the african lives better? How much of out stanard are we prepared to sacrifice to make their better?

Sadly, I don't think we are prepared to do that in Europe. Not at all.

 

[DuderSkanks]

Jesus is a pretty cool guy. eh forgives all our sins and doesn't afraid of Satan.

(yes, I know how it usually goes. shut up)

 

[Jonabob87]

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

Why can't you have it? Give reasons not assertions.

ag·nos·ti·cism
   /ægˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2.
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

a·the·ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One is uncertain, the other is certain. They are opposites, they can't be one in the same.

Agnostic atheism is a term coined by Dawkins in the Book, it is a point on spectrum of belief, you would know this if you had actually read the book you are attempting (and failing) to comment on.

And because Dawkins says it it makes sense? Good Lord!

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

I'd vote for him if only to get some changes.

 

[NaramSuen]

I am not an American, but if I was I would probably vote for one of the smaller parties in an attempt to move away from a two-party system, so unless Jesus ran for one of those he wouldn't get my vote. However, I would be interested in hearing what the historical Jesus would have to say about these people who are doing things in his name.

 

[Blitzwarp]

I wouldn't considering that if it's a straight reincarnation most of his policies would be waaay out of date, but I would be amused at the chaos caused when the die-hard batshit Christians finally realise he's a Jew. It would be worse than the Obama = Muslim wank, and that was pretty darn epic all by itself.

[small]No I'm not being anti-Christian or anti-Semetic, I'm just saying there would be a shitstorm of some kind.[/small]

 

[Jodah]

The real Jesus of the bible? Turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, all that jazz? Sure I would vote for him. He can't be any worse than the jerks we have now.

Now if it was the idea of Jesus that whackos like those from WBC would have us believe as truth, not so much. Him I would smack upside the head instead.