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

[Mako SOLDIER]

Disclaimer: No personal offense is intended, but since forums can be such volatile places I point out that this post is intended in the spirit of healthy debate.

Anyhoo...

The problem is, modern atheism deifies science in the same manner that the Egyptians deified the sun, or the manner in which the ancient Pagans deified the changes in the seasons and the growth or their crops, etc. It's just another belief system disguised as scientific thinking. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly religious and I'd say there's no proof of any deity (although polytheistic religions utilise prayer as an interesting psychological tool to get in touch with character traits that one would like to display, but that's for a different conversation). However, even Stephen Hawking, irrefutably the greatest scientific mind on the planet, refuses to rule out the concept of religion, probably because the origins of the universe are still shrouded in mystery and there is nothing to disprove the idea of a greater power. Maybe it will get disproven one day, but it hasn't been yet. And, of course, this leaves any hypothesis concerning the existence of deity flawed and incomplete, because we do not yet understand the universe or physics well enough to have all the necessary evidence to come to a fully informed conclusion. When someone like Hawking is willing to stay open minded, then I don't care what Dawkins (nasty bullying little man that he is) or anyone else says, the rational, logical and above all scientific thing to do is to stay open minded until there is conclusive proof either way.

To be honest, most belief systems have screwed things up at some time or another, whether it's the crusades, small town xenophobia, or a dispute over the colour of a flag. When something challenges something that a person has a strongly held belief in, they will usually defend the belief before they will choose to change the belief. Strong, set beliefs with no flexibility to consider an outside viewpoint are the problem, not religion per se. After all, is there anyone in their right mind that actually believes that Dawkins would hesitate to set up concentration camps for religious people if he had the power to do so and get away with it? Despite the fact that there are many excellent scientists that also hold religious beliefs? Again, it's inflexibility of belief, not the belief itself that causes problems.

K...

My first response to a lot of your response is a resounding "Bullshit"

Every intellectually honest person knows that there could be a God, and that he in principle could be discovered at any point if evidence was gathered.

And this includes Richard Dawkins, which you would know if you had actually read ANY of his books, and in fact i've grown to despise this "Waaaah Dawkins is such a meanie-head" He isn't, none of his books contain any degree of bullying or attempts to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.

In fact Dawkins quotes Socrates in the God Delusion "The only thing i know, is the extent of my own ignorance" He never claims that there CAN'T be a God, and this whole "Dawkins is an asshole and a bully" is getting really tired.

I'm not at all denying that some of the atheistic community has problems, many of our number are douchebag teenage boys who think they're edgy, but this whole "fanatical Atheists are as bad as fanatical religious people is a crock of shit.

Well, he did a tv show about evolution where he used it to push his Atheist agenda on school children in a forceful and utterly unacceptable manner. I call that bullying. You can call it what you will, but I've seen him do it, vis a vis I have evidence to back up my statement. That is my issue with Dawkins. As considered as he may occasionally come across, he DOES push his belief on others and he DOES do it in a forceful manner.

 

[Atheist.]

As long as he keeps me wasted off my ass in free wine, I see no problem with it.

 

[Koljin999]

No, no reasonother than to see the look on his face

 

[outcesticide69]

I love how people would vote for a slimy, sleazy, politician but not Jesus Christ XD

 

[Faladorian]

Jesus was a kind, honest, loving and wise man... So he has no place in American politics. Yeah, I'd vote for him.

I'd love to see what the other guy running would do. Try running a smear capaign against freakin' JESUS?

Easy:
-Not born in the USA
-Birthday is not known (No, Christmas is not his birthday)
-Even if he was the smartest person of his time, he would be comparably unintelligent
-Nobody's sure he even existed (I think he did. I don't think he was anything special, but I think he existed)
-He's the son of a seemingly neglectful/malevolent creator
-Put to death by the state
-(This only applies if he actually claimed to be the son of a god and a martyr and such, and that wasn't just people jumping to conclusions): He's a liar. The son of God thing is contestable, but he didn't die for our sins. He was put to death for his.


To the OP, absolutely not. Religion has no place in politics, and I personally find the story of Jesus to be a boatload of bollocks. He might have been a good person, but nobody can walk on water or heal the blind with a flick of the wrist. It doesn't happen.

Side note: Inb4 mod edit calling this inflammatory.

 

[Blayze2k]

Well, suffice to say I have strange religious/spiritual views, but I don't believe the real Christ ever said or would have said a word against gay people. I don't believe that anything said in the bible against gay people accurately reflects God's opinion. (Which is to say, I believe they are lies, fabrications, falsehoods.)

With that out of the way, yes. I would vote for Jesus in a heartbeat.
Although He WOULD bring about the end of the U.S. as a nation. Jus' sayin'.

 

[HT_Black]

I did in 2008!
/haha

Seriously, though. He's Jesus. There's no reason to not vote for him!

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

Disclaimer: No personal offense is intended, but since forums can be such volatile places I point out that this post is intended in the spirit of healthy debate.

Anyhoo...

The problem is, modern atheism deifies science in the same manner that the Egyptians deified the sun, or the manner in which the ancient Pagans deified the changes in the seasons and the growth or their crops, etc. It's just another belief system disguised as scientific thinking. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly religious and I'd say there's no proof of any deity (although polytheistic religions utilise prayer as an interesting psychological tool to get in touch with character traits that one would like to display, but that's for a different conversation). However, even Stephen Hawking, irrefutably the greatest scientific mind on the planet, refuses to rule out the concept of religion, probably because the origins of the universe are still shrouded in mystery and there is nothing to disprove the idea of a greater power. Maybe it will get disproven one day, but it hasn't been yet. And, of course, this leaves any hypothesis concerning the existence of deity flawed and incomplete, because we do not yet understand the universe or physics well enough to have all the necessary evidence to come to a fully informed conclusion. When someone like Hawking is willing to stay open minded, then I don't care what Dawkins (nasty bullying little man that he is) or anyone else says, the rational, logical and above all scientific thing to do is to stay open minded until there is conclusive proof either way.

To be honest, most belief systems have screwed things up at some time or another, whether it's the crusades, small town xenophobia, or a dispute over the colour of a flag. When something challenges something that a person has a strongly held belief in, they will usually defend the belief before they will choose to change the belief. Strong, set beliefs with no flexibility to consider an outside viewpoint are the problem, not religion per se. After all, is there anyone in their right mind that actually believes that Dawkins would hesitate to set up concentration camps for religious people if he had the power to do so and get away with it? Despite the fact that there are many excellent scientists that also hold religious beliefs? Again, it's inflexibility of belief, not the belief itself that causes problems.

K...

My first response to a lot of your response is a resounding "Bullshit"

Every intellectually honest person knows that there could be a God, and that he in principle could be discovered at any point if evidence was gathered.

And this includes Richard Dawkins, which you would know if you had actually read ANY of his books, and in fact i've grown to despise this "Waaaah Dawkins is such a meanie-head" He isn't, none of his books contain any degree of bullying or attempts to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.

In fact Dawkins quotes Socrates in the God Delusion "The only thing i know, is the extent of my own ignorance" He never claims that there CAN'T be a God, and this whole "Dawkins is an asshole and a bully" is getting really tired.

I'm not at all denying that some of the atheistic community has problems, many of our number are douchebag teenage boys who think they're edgy, but this whole "fanatical Atheists are as bad as fanatical religious people is a crock of shit.

you do realize whom in recent history falls into the ranks of fanatical atheists right?(not saying that do be mean but damn)

Charlie Sheen? No, not really. I must confess ignorance there. My first thought was Hitler, but seeing as he was a pretty fervent occultist (and many of the world's more recent occult traditions are tied to religious frameworks) I couldn't really speculate.

 

[esperandote]

Finally someone i could trust

 

[Faladorian]

Well, he did a tv show about evolution where he used it to push his Atheist agenda on school children in a forceful and utterly unacceptable manner. I call that bullying. You can call it what you will, but I've seen him do it, vis a vis I have evidence to back up my statement. That is my issue with Dawkins. As considered as he may occasionally come across, he DOES push his belief on others and he DOES do it in a forceful manner.

The thing is, evolution is fact. Some people claim not to "believe in" evolution, but what they really mean is they deny evolution. Some say it's "only a theory." Time is only a theory. Gravity is only a theory. Does that discredit time or gravity? No.

"Atheist agenda" makes you sound like you should be on Fox News, no offense. Besides as said before, he has said that he can't possibly claim to know that there is no God. I am a rabid atheist, I'll admit, and I know I can't say there is no God. I'd be willing to bet money on it, but I can't say for sure.

Also, you don't have to raise kids atheist for them to be atheist. When I was growing up, I was told that some people believe in gods and angels and those things. I wasn't told there was a god, I wasn't told there was not. I came to the conclusion, in the absence of drilling ideas into my head when I was young and naive, that all religions seem equally silly. Now, believing in silly things isn't my issue. Go ahead and think what you want. My issue is when it's used for evil. Gay marriage is still an issue in the USA because our government and country has Christian roots. The Bible claims that homosexual sex is detestable. The guys who wrote it just sound like homophobes to me.

In line with gay marriage, why would god hate gays for being gay if he made them gay? It makes no sense. Not only the LGBT community is under fire. Muslims are a popular target lately, since 9/11/01. People assume that all Muslims are terrorists because some extremist Muslims took their ideas too far. That in no way means there's any correlation between Muslims and Al'Qaeda, any more than there's a correlation between your common Christian man and a medieval Crusader who burns and chops up people for being heretics.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Well, he did a tv show about evolution where he used it to push his Atheist agenda on school children in a forceful and utterly unacceptable manner. I call that bullying. You can call it what you will, but I've seen him do it, vis a vis I have evidence to back up my statement. That is my issue with Dawkins. As considered as he may occasionally come across, he DOES push his belief on others and he DOES do it in a forceful manner.

Please feel free to post such then, if you have it?

Also, one atheistic show on television about Evolution led by Richard Dawkins with potentially some passion to it compared to countless thousands of Evangelical Christian television shows in which tend to go the route of passive-aggressive Inquisition tactics to get their belief's across to the society in which they tel-evangelize towards daily.

..Yep, those darn atheists, and their less-than-one-percent-of-showtime-globally compared to everyone else!

-_-

 

[MgsTheFury]

I don't vote for zombies

 

[crystalsnow]

Hell yes. I'm not even Christian and I'd vote for the guy. HE'S JESUS.

Spoiler

 

[kikon9]

Only if he can still cause miracles. Otherwise, I don't think he has enough modern leadership experience. Also, there's the whole birth thing.

 

[kikon9]

Finally someone i could thrust

You may want to change that last word.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

The problem is, modern atheism deifies science ... It's just another belief system disguised as scientific thinking.

If there is no evidence for something then there is no reason to believe in it. That is not defying science it is science. No evidence, no conclusion.

You are right on that, however the problem with Atheism (not that all Atheists are as bullish on this as others, I don't in any way mean to generalise) is that it can be interpreted in two ways : simply a belief that science can explain everything, or an active belief that all religion is false (a delusion, in Dawkins' own words). These are two very different conclusions, and only one of them is scientific.

The big bang theory is a good example. We all (as do I) take it as true because it is currently the most feasible of several theories, but it has not yet been proven. Thus it is inconclusive. Science can attempt to disprove certain specific religious dogma but it has yet to prove anything either way regarding the mere concept of a 'greater force' or whatever you want to call it. By this rationale it is completely justified to believe that there is none. However, to tell others that they are wrong, to question their intelligence etc on that basis, is very wrong indeed. Sure, I could say that there is an invisible bar of soap floating in the middle of the room it is not only ludicrous but the hypothesis can be tested. If I said "How did the universe reach the state it was in before the big bang?" or even just "Why does the universe exist at all", science does not yet have the necessary information to properly test those hypotheses. It probably will do eventually imo, but at the moment we certainly don't have enough evidence to persecute people who do believe it could be part of some grand design. Heck, string theory is still immensely popular (and publicised enough that almost anyone will at least have heard of it), but it's still largely untested in any real sense. Science does not always deal in absolutes, and that's what's exciting about it. Taking a hypothesis that cannot be fully tested and then turning the two potential outcomes into a war of ideals is not scientific in any way.

 

[Blayze2k]

-Even if he was the smartest person of his time, he would be comparably unintelligent

WOAH.
This is some old-school imperialist ethno-centrism.

People of the past were no less intelligent than people now. Sure, we have more advanced technology, but how much of it did YOU invent?