pug846

Seebs said:

You’re a horrible, god awful, pitiful excuse for a citizen. In a civil case, the standard of guilt is supposed to be by “preponderance of the evidence,” which is generally interpretated to mean 50% sure, plus a tad. Your blatant disrespect for the rule of law sickens me. May God help us all if you ever serve on a jury in a civil case. (Unless of course…I’m on the plaintiff’s side.)

I’d like to cast my vote for this thread as stupidest of the year. Conveniently enough, since I’m an atheist, my vote definitely should count.

Actually, should we even trust theists’ to vote in public elections? If they aren’t capable of forming rational beliefs in a court of law, why should we let them vote? We don’t let small children vote for similar reasons…why not theists? Is there any way in which we can disable theist voting for polls on the II?

Do some of you actually believe as a matter of fact that there is this huge gulf between the way theists and atheists think? Do I really have to list all of the incredibly intelligent theists and *gasp* Christians?

Starboy

pug846, come now, that is not very democratic. Even stupid people have the right to be represented in our government.

It would be nice if they were able to read and understand the bill of rights, especially the number one amendment.

Starboy

GunnerJ

Pug, I have my issues with the OP, but I think there is a deeper reason for its wording than meets the eye. It's meant not to cast doubt on theists' critical thinking skills, but rather to ask theists to think about why they compartmentalize their thinking.

Obviously, most theists are capable of critical thought in most of their lives, and I doubt that thebeave seriously thinks that theists are incapable of seeing how flimsy the plaintif's case in this example is, but the purpose is to draw parallels to the flimsy basis of theistic belief and religious belief in general.

Sabine Grant

Good question Pug846 that is if one assumes that theists only vote for another theist. Now of course a theist can remain an objective individual who is going to accept that morality does not necessarly apply to the claim of being a theist.

Idealy religious convictions should not be what leads a vote to one or another candidate rather the potential for social reforms the candidate presents. Does his platform present contributing positive factors to society? what about his or her character? whether he or she is a theist or an atheist should be irrelevent

Voting is a civil duty. One has to detach himself from the need to project his religious beliefs or lack of when it is about what is the best for all people rather than " what fits me".

Interestingly enough I meet christians who do not support the " christian " president GWB mostly because they evaluate that his warmonging mentality is not for the benefit of the nation. Those folks would rather see a non theist leader than GWB. So they are capable of rational thinking. They can be objective and evaluate what is good for the entire nation and what can be a disaster. You would not want to perclude such people from voting would you?

seebs

And the answer, to a certain extent, is "because religion is different from other kinds of things". I compartmentalize *all* of my thinking, using different standards for different kinds of things.

Starboy

Sabine, I respect your commitment to the democratic process but do you honestly think that a qualified, able and well-prepared atheist presidential candidate would have any chance of being elected? Let’s move up the political food chain, how about a Muslim or Jewish candidate? What about Buddhist or Hindu? Why it wasn’t till J.F. Kennedy that a Catholic was elected. Religion matters in this country. That is why all the candidates pander to Christians. That is why there is so much BS about Christian values that pummel our sensibilities during election season. I will grant you that a good many Christians don’t let a candidate’s religious declarations dominate their choice. But if it weren’t such an important factor why would a candidate say anything at all about their religious views? And why would anyone care to ask?

Starboy

GunnerJ

A reasonable enough answer, so long as you are not trying to convince anyone of your beliefs, nor trying to legislate based on it. Sicne you don't, and I know this not just from your claims but from how you act on this board, it doesn't apply. The OP, though, recognizes that many theist do ask that their opinions be taken as seriously as a murder charge. And when they do, their claims should logically be held at as high a standard of proof.

seebs

And so does everyone else. Every law ever proposed has been rooted in a belief about what goals are "desirable" that, in the end, comes down to something as completely subjective and personal as any religious experience ever was.

Philosophy, too, is not rooted in evidence.

Liquidrage

I cannot agree with this.

Earlier we did agree that morals are completely subjective, but this goes an extra step.
Laws are not just "rooted in a belief about what goals are "desirable" that, in the end, comes down to something as completely subjective and personal as any religious experience ever was".

What it seems you are doing is giving the methodology of science zero value. You seem to basically be stating that everything that is not 100% verifiable is equal in terms of subjectivity.

For example, murder although it can be argued is not intrinsicly immoral, is overwhelmingly not an act that people wish committed on themselves.
Now, I didn't do a very good survey here, but if you wish to argue that most people want to be murdered then I think we have no need to debate further.
However, if you would agree that most people do not want to be murdered then you must be able to clearly see an objective reason for the law.

Now, if the majority want to murder someone so much that the risk of being murdered themselves is outweighed by the desire to murder, so be it. The law changes. But it still have valid objective roots.

You compare this to religion. You are personally arguing as if your belief in a religion is as objective as this.
You seem to say this because of an experience you had. I would like to know what experience this is. You also seem to take this stance as if everyone that is religious, or even most that are, have had a similar experience that has reinforced their religious views.
I strongly question that stance if that is indeed your stance.
I have and do now know many Theists, and not a single one (outside of those like yourself I have met only online) has had a personal experience that points to a certain brand of theist. Though I do know a few, very few, that have claimed to have an experience of unknown origin, that has led them to become a theist.

You seem to be a Christian, am I wrong?
If so, how does your experience tie into this particular religion.

seebs

Another concern with this line of reasoning has occurred to me:

Our standards for murder convictions, themselves, are entirely the result of unsupported personal beliefs about what "justice" is.

So, while you're at it, consider that the same "higher standards" you're comparing philosophical beliefs to were *set* based on philosophical beliefs.

(I am generalizing from "religious belief" because the generalization seems, to me, to stand up to inspection; all philosophy comes down to personal assumptions.)