Atheist or Agnostic President?

[Mufumonk]

What you consider logic I consider the inability to take a stand and come to a decision on your own.

You also dont know if you do your homework tomorrow that you might miss out on something life changing. Are you not going to do your homework now?

If you go to the Caps game Jessica Alba may come by your house and confess that she loves you. You dont have all the facts to discredit that so its up to you if you want to take that chance.

You could say those that are guided by the will of "God" are not exactly making decisions on their own.

[BigMike619]

Way to completely ignore the next sentence. :thumbsup:

Dude I debated you enough last night over religion. I dont have the energy to teach you any more.

I believe they are good men because of their beliefs and faith in Christ our Lord. If you dont buy it good on ya, but I am not going to beat this horse any more.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Is this for me or Brice?

Not you. I figured he would jump all over this

[BigMike619]

You could say those that are guided by the will of "God" are not exactly making decisions on their own.

touche...BUT

God did give man free will to make those choices on his own too..

[rincewind]

Dude I debated you enough last night over religion. I dont have the energy to teach you any more.

I believe they are good men because of their beliefs and faith in Christ our Lord. If you dont buy it good on ya, but I am not going to beat this horse any more.

Teach me? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

My point was to say they are good men because they are Christian is to imply that without their religion they wouldn't have good morals. I call bull**** and say that the means aren't important, just the ends. If you took away thier religion and left their morals, they would still be good men - if you took away their morals and left their religion, they would be pieces of trash.

[BigMike619]

Teach me? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

My point was to say they are good men because they are Christian is to imply that without their religion they wouldn't have good morals. I call bull**** and say that the means aren't important, just the ends. If you took away thier religion and left their morals, they would still be good men - if you took away their morals and left their religion, they would be pieces of trash.

Its like you have one record in your collection and you have played it so many times all of the songs are starting to sound the same. :doh:

You're right Rince, religion and spirituality have nothing to do with why they are good men. It just happens that luck struck both of these men almost exactly the same way.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

I wouldn't say flaunt. I'd say he's just open about it.

Well, he wrote a book about his faith. Not a problem IMO. But he is the only coach right now who I can think of that brings up the lord often.

That's why I love the movie Facing the Giants.

"No matter what happens, win or lose, we will praise Him."

Haven't seen it. Good movie?

I agree that the religious coaches do act with more class than, say a Bellicheck, who I would put money on that he is an atheist. Or maybe he is just a evil prick:)

[33]

You're right Rince, religion and spirituality have nothing to do with why they are good men. It just happens that luck struck both of these men almost exactly the same way.

But seriously, what about those that are just as religious but straight jerks? Or those that are fully respectable and not very religious. You're statement doesn't leave much room for decent humans who are not devout. Or for terrible humans that are.

[BigMike619]

But seriously, what about those that are just as religious but straight jerks? Or those that are fully respectable and not very religious. You're statement doesn't leave much room for decent humans who are not devout. Or for terrible humans that are.

No, my statement is me stating that religion has made THESE men what they are. You are always going to have a few bad apples in the bunch. Its just the way. Those such as Fallwell, Bakker, etc. But that doesnt mean a healthy based Christian faith hasnt made Joe Gibbs, Tony Dungy and those like them who they are.

Those who arent religious and are good people are good people. I am not saying the ONLY way to be a good person is to be religious, I am saying that religion has helped these men.

[rincewind]

Its like you have one record in your collection and you have played it so many times all of the songs are starting to sound the same. :doh:

You're right Rince, religion and spirituality have nothing to do with why they are good men. It just happens that luck struck both of these men almost exactly the same way.

Kind of like saying over, and over, and over again that agnostics can't make a decision? What is my one record by the way? Because I don't think your claim can hold any water whatsoever.

[rincewind]

But seriously, what about those that are just as religious but straight jerks? Or those that are fully respectable and not very religious. You're statement doesn't leave much room for decent humans who are not devout. Or for terrible humans that are.

Thank you - I didn't think it was the hard of a concept to grasp, guess I was wrong.

[33]

No, my statement is me stating that religion has made THESE men what they are. You are always going to have a few bad apples in the bunch. Its just the way. Those such as Fallwell, Bakker, etc. But that doesnt mean a healthy based Christian faith hasnt made Joe Gibbs, Tony Dungy and those like them who they are.

Those who arent religious and are good people are good people. I am not saying the ONLY way to be a good person is to be religious, I am saying that religion has helped these men.

Fair 'nuff, but I imagine you can see how your statements sometime leads one to believe that you think a man NEEDS faith to be an honorable, person worthy of leading.

[BigMike619]

Fair 'nuff, but I imagine you can see how your statements sometime leads one to believe that you think a man NEEDS faith to be an honorable, person worthy of leading.

It doesnt hurt in my opinion

But I am not God and I have been taught not to cast judgment.

Im not perfect there but I try not to.

[techboy]

I think I'll answer the actual question.

There's no way a professing atheist or agnostic can be President in our country's current make-up. Presidencies are won or lost by 2 or 3% swinging one way or the other, and there are a lot of people that wouldn't vote for an open atheist or agnostic.

As for the future, it will only happen if things change in the make-up of the country. Assuming the trends toward secularization hold (and perhaps accelerate), we might be in a Europe-like status eventually (it will take generations, though, with the older believers literally dying off), at which time, it would certainly be possible. Heck, at that point, being a professing Christian could be a detriment.

[nuposse87]

we're to caught up in our own petty personal beliefs to elect a rational president, so, no.

[33]

As for the future, it will only happen if things change in the make-up of the country. Assuming the trends toward secularization hold (and perhaps accelerate), we might be in a Europe-like status eventually (it will take generations, though, with the older believers literally dying off), at which time, it would certainly be possible. Heck, at that point, being a professing Christian could be a detriment.

The problem is the religious have more babies on average than the seculars and the sides become more polarized. It's what's happened in Israel and it will likely happen in the U.S.

Many secularists believe we are meant to replenish life and have one baby per person, while many religious folk believe we are to procreate as much as possible. Clearly this isn't the only reason for this phenomenon.

Our days of non-believers is probably over.

And yet no one has addressed the fact that a portion of our founding fathers had atheist tendencies and were by no means Christian men in the modern sense.

[BigMike619]

The problem is the religious have more babies on average than the seculars and the sides become more polarized. It's what's happened in Israel and it will likely happen in the U.S.

Many secularists believe we are meant to replenish life and have one baby per person, while many religious folk believe we are to procreate as much as possible. Clearly this isn't the only reason for this phenomenon.

Our days of non-believers is probably over.

And yet no one has addressed the fact that a portion of our founding fathers had atheist tendencies and were by no means Christian men in the modern sense.

talk about your off the wall speculation.

yeah, believers have more babies so that will ruin any chances we have. :doh:

[War Paint]

If we are ever under the rule of a dictator, we will. Hopefully an atheist will never be elected.

[Mufumonk]

Dude I debated you enough last night over religion. I dont have the energy to teach you any more.

I believe they are good men because of their beliefs and faith in Christ our Lord. If you dont buy it good on ya, but I am not going to beat this horse any more.

Perception is everything.

[rincewind]

If we are ever under the rule of a dictator, we will. Hopefully an atheist will never be elected.

Yeah, because all dictators are atheits.

[BigMike619]

Perception is everything.

Ok, and a man with a knife and fork in his hands is usually hungry.

[techboy]

And yet no one has addressed the fact that a portion of our founding fathers had atheist tendencies and were by no means Christian men in the modern sense.

Well, there are likely three very good reasons for that.

1) The founding fathers you reference weren't atheists. They were deists. Thomas Paine was an atheist, but you've missed him thus far.

2) Quoting the founding fathers is a tricky game (there's a quote by Washington to the effect that the Bible is the only source for good government, for instance), one that both atheists and theists alike like to play to twist the writings to support their view, and one that has also been played here over and over and over and over and...

3) Most importantly, the issue is totally irrelevant to the subject of whether or not future Presidents would be atheists or agnostics. It might be relevant to whether we've ever had one in the past, I suppose, but that's not the question as I read it. Speaking for myself, I haven't addressed your quotes because they have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[techboy]

The problem is the religious have more babies on average than the seculars and the sides become more polarized. It's what's happened in Israel and it will likely happen in the U.S.

I doubt it. The percentage of non-believers seems to be steadily increasing, while fervency of religious beliefs seems to be waning. I see the U.S. going the way of Europe, which also had a large number of "breeding" religious people not too long ago, but now has churches that exist solely as tourist attractions, rather than houses of worship.

Of course, I've seen a few signs that religious belief may be clawing back in Europe (and not just because of Muslim immigrants), so who knows?

Our days of non-believers is probably over.

Religious people have always made up the vast majority of the country. How can those days be over when they never existed to begin with?

[33]

talk about your off the wall speculation.

yeah, believers have more babies so that will ruin any chances we have. :doh:

It isn't speculation that the religious or at least fundamentalists have more children. It's fact. It is also a fact that is well documented in Israel in in part responsible for the more extremist populace majority opinions.

As to your second response, it assumes I said something that I didn't. I never said any chances at anything are ruined. I don't even know what you're talking about. I think you must have misunderstood something.

[33]

I doubt it. The percentage of non-believers seems to be steadily increasing, while fervency of religious beliefs seems to be waning. I see the U.S. going the way of Europe, which also had a large number of "breeding" religious people not too long ago, but now has churches that exist solely as tourist attractions, rather than houses of worship.

I think this depends on where you live and what you believe. I have seen ZERO actual evidence that the percentage of non-believers is steadily increasing. As I said, I firmly believe it's the opposite.

Ronald Reagan's conservative Republicans were not about religion. GW Bush's are all about it.

Religious people have always made up the vast majority of the country. How can those days be over when they never existed to begin with?

I think I meant to say that our days of having a non-believer in the White House are probably over. I'm having a busy day and don't think I meant to say it the way I wrote it.