So about Obama being a Muslim...

[juansavage1]

I personally don't believe that we're just "a lump of chemicals" but I imagine that they probably see morality as an evolutionary adaptation; it makes better evolutionary sense to work together, to take care of each other, etc. I don't see how that is trying have your cake and eat it too. Everyone can rationalize just about anything within their own worldview. It is how we make sense of the world.

OK. It's an evolutionary principle. So's heterosexual sex. So, is pro-life. So, by the way, is violence, theft, gossiping, war, and fear. Everything is an evolutionary principle or we wouldn't do it or want to do it. The trick is convincing people who want to do something not to do it. 

 

"You shouldn't kill your neighbor for his bicycle. 

 

"Why not?" 

 

"Well, I like this evolutionary principle over this other one."

 

"Uh, OK."

[juansavage1]

The most conservative friend I have is an atheist. He most he a liar though.

Conservatism minus a Christian obligation towards fellow men or any other restraints is probably the worst system out there. You get some kind of Randian dystopia. 

[TobiasFunke]

Conservatism minus a Christian obligation towards fellow men or any other restraints is probably the worst system out there. You get some kind of Randian dystopia.

That...or you get a conservative that just doesn't believe in the trinity and that's about it.

[juansavage1]

That...or you get a conservative that just doesn't believe in the trinity and that's about it.

I think some kind of Theism is necessary to rationally believe in a moral obligation. It doesn't have to be the Trinity. Jews invented codified universal morality and they didn't believe in the Trinity. 

 

There have been communist societies. There have been theocracies and there have been Christian societies. There haven't been any atheistic, right wing societies that I can think of. 

[Puget Sound Angel]

Trump and some elected Republicans will say they don't know if Obama is a Muslim. Have some balls. If you are going to pander to racists, just come out and say, yes I agree he is a non-American Muslim. Don't be a pussy about it, birthers.

[Angelsjunky]

I think some kind of Theism is necessary to rationally believe in a moral obligation.

 

Even though, in the end, theism is an irrational proposition? It is belief-based, not rationally deduced (although nice try, Descartes) - at least for the vast majority of believers.

 

Also, being such a learned person I assume you realize that secular humanism is based upon reason.

 

Also, there are other sources of morality than theistic, or even secular humanist. Some believe that we develop a deep conscience which has more to do with our underlying interconnectedness with others than it does belief or reason.

[Angelsjunky]

Trump and some elected Republicans will say they don't know if Obama is a Muslim. Have some balls. If you are going to pander to racists, just come out and say, yes I agree he is a non-American Muslim. Don't be a pussy about it, birthers.

 

Trump knows fully well that Obama is not a Muslim. But the Republicans are in a bit of a pickle: They have to try to appeal to their backwards base that believes Obama is a Muslim, but also to the moderates that are needed to win the election. They've kind of dug themselves into this hole, with Reagan-era jingoism and Bush-era nationalism that only encouraged deep-seated hatred and fear of the Other.

[Stradling]

OK. It's an evolutionary principle. So's heterosexual sex. So, is pro-life. So, by the way, is violence, theft, gossiping, war, and fear. Everything is an evolutionary principle or we wouldn't do it or want to do it. The trick is convincing people who want to do something not to do it.

"You shouldn't kill your neighbor for his bicycle.

"Why not?"

"Well, I like this evolutionary principle over this other one."

"Uh, OK."

This is moronic

[juansavage1]

Even though, in the end, theism is an irrational proposition? It is belief-based, not rationally deduced (although nice try, Descartes) - at least for the vast majority of believers.

 

Also, being such a learned person I assume you realize that secular humanism is based upon reason.

 

Also, there are other sources of morality than theistic, or even secular humanist. Some believe that we develop a deep conscience which has more to do with our underlying interconnectedness with others than it does belief or reason.

 

 

Even though, in the end, theism is an irrational proposition? It is belief-based, not rationally deduced (although nice try, Descartes) - at least for the vast majority of believers.

 

It's rationally deduced (Kalam formulation from wikipedia. There are others, the most prominent being Aristotle, who invented formal logic, and Aquinas): 

 

 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist; Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:^[4]

1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore:
3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

[juansavage1]

Also, being such a learned person I assume you realize that secular humanism is based upon reason.

 

Also, there are other sources of morality than theistic, or even secular humanist. Some believe that we develop a deep conscience which has more to do with our underlying interconnectedness with others than it does belief or reason.

 

This isn't true. First, secularism isn't the same as atheism, which is what you're talking about. Atheism is based on not wanting to believe in God and nothing else. The only rational case for atheism would be that...I don't know, the unlikelihood, perhaps. That God doesn't act the way he should? 

 

There are other sources of morality that aren't religious, but they can't make the claim to be universal, independent, and transcendent. They're opinions based on what outcomes you prefer. You can follow those opinions if you wish. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by Juan Savage

[nate]

Nothing like saying someone who doesn't believe in Jesus is not fit to lead.

[Lhalo]

Nothing like saying someone who doesn't believe in Jesus is not fit to lead.

 

Thanks for bringing us back on target Nate.

 

I think Carson really shot himself in the foot with that comment.

[Angelsjunky]

Juan, that the universe began is a theory. Actually, there are alternate theories that posit the universe didn't have a beginning.

 

Anyhow, even if we assume the universe has a beginning, its cause need not be a personal creator or even an intentional act.

 

(I'm not taking a stand on this either way, I just don't buy that belief in God is rationally based, or at least the vast majority of people who are theistic don't work it out like Aristotle or Descartes!).

[Angelsjunky]

 

AJ: Also, being such a learned person I assume you realize that secular humanism is based upon reason.

 

Also, there are other sources of morality than theistic, or even secular humanist. Some believe that we develop a deep conscience which has more to do with our underlying interconnectedness with others than it does belief or reason.

 

JUAN: This isn't true. First, secularism isn't the same as atheism, which is what you're talking about. Atheism is based on not wanting to believe in God and nothing else. The only rational case for atheism would be that...I don't know, the unlikelihood, perhaps. That God doesn't act the way he should? 

 

There are other sources of morality that aren't religious, but they can't make the claim to be universally, independently, and transcendent. They're opinions based on what outcomes you prefer. You can follow those opinions if you wish. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you are saying isn't true. And atheism is generally based upon the idea that there's no proof for God, that it is a fictitious, imaginary idea. I'm not saying that's true, but that's how atheists think (I'm not a strict atheist, by the way).

 

Juan, how is your religious belief not "an opinion based on what outcomes you prefer?" Religious absolutism is also a claim. This is where religious fundamentalists just can't, or won't, go and probably why you're so deathly opposed to relativism. They mistake their own subjective opinion/belief with absolute truth.

[juansavage1]

Juan, that the universe began is a theory. Actually, there are alternate theories that posit the universe didn't have a beginning.

 

Anyhow, even if we assume the universe has a beginning, its cause need not be a personal creator or even an intentional act.

 

(I'm not taking a stand on this either way, I just don't buy that belief in God is rationally based, or at least the vast majority of people who are theistic don't work it out like Aristotle or Descartes!).

The first isn't true. All theories have a beginning. You can push it back by coming up with theories that have ZERO evidence, like multiple universes, but those have beginnings as well. This is just reason. 

 

The cause has to be something uncaused, eternal, and capable of creation. It couldn't be matter, right? What else would it be?

 

Whether you think it's rationally-based or not, it is. That's the beauty of science or reason- you can prove things to people who don't want to believe it. 

[InsideThePark]

Multiverse isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis.

[mtangelsfan]

Nothing like saying someone who doesn't believe in Jesus is not fit to lead.

 

You guys sure have a double standard.  I've seen several comments on here about how Christians shouldn't be president.

 

Regardless, I don't think he said exactly what you stated either. 

[nate]

I have never once said a Christian shouldn't be president.

 

I do not think that any of our laws should be based on religious belief.

[mtangelsfan]

Bottom line he didn't say what you said he did.

 

I don't necessarily agree with what he did say, but his opinion is his opinion. 

 

None of this group of candidates deserve my vote.

 

and there have been several posts saying fundamentalist Christians should not be president. 

[Glen]

You guys sure have a double standard. I've seen several comments on here about how Christians shouldn't be president.

Regardless, I don't think he said exactly what you stated either.

Can you quote those comments?

[nate]

Bottom line he didn't say what you said he did.

 

I don't necessarily agree with what he did say, but his opinion is his opinion. 

 

None of this group of candidates deserve my vote.

 

and there have been several posts saying fundamentalist Christians should not be president. 

 

I don't care what they believe in, as long as they can separate it from how they legislate and lead.

[mtangelsfan]

Can you quote those comments?

 

Is that your way of asking for a link?

 

Don't have one.  You will have to decide whether you believe me or not.

[Glen]

I'm sure many of us, myself included, have said something similar to what Nate said, that we don't want somebody ruling as theocracy and personally I've expressed my severe dislike for Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq.  There's a big difference between that and saying Christians shouldn't be president.

[mtangelsfan]

I understand the difference in those statements Glen. 

[juansavage1]

I don't care about the president's religion. I vote for Romney and I don't agree with his religion. I trust a president more if he sincerely believes in God because I know he has limits and obligations.