It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dawkins and Tyson discuss addressing believers & secularists

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Please, Pat, try to watch the video.
It will really be enlightening for you....

Tyson says, "I didn't care about how religious [a person might be] ... just the decisions they make.... [I only care] that they have the capacity to think logically."




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

The Constitution says 'there shall be no religious test'. So - why do the candidates have their 'religion' listed on the article I linked?

What they're saying is that no one would dare deny being religious in today's climate.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

The Constitution says 'there shall be no religious test'. So - why do the candidates have their 'religion' listed on the article I linked?

What they're saying is that no one would dare deny being religious in today's climate.

The candidates are doing that entirely of their own volition. There is no statute that requires a candidate to do so.

That would be unconstitutional. It is the people--not the state--who demand to know, and rightly so.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

- Article 6

You do know that the Constitution is a set of rules for the government, not the people, right?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther


The candidates are doing that entirely of their own volition. There is no statute that requires a candidate to do so.

That would be unconstitutional. It is the people--not the state--who demand to know, and rightly so.

I see this above remark as quite contradictory in and of itself.

Why can't we vote WITHOUT knowing about the candidate's religious beliefs? Like, if there was a rule that one was NOT ALLOWED to bring up their 'faith'......it would help.

Anyway - watch the vid, if you can find the patience and relaxed breathing necessary to do that......
I hope you do.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Why can't we vote WITHOUT knowing about the candidate's religious beliefs? Like, if there was a rule that one was NOT ALLOWED to bring up their 'faith'......it would help.

So you want to prohibit candidates from discussing their religion?


Anyway - watch the vid, if you can find the patience and relaxed breathing necessary to do that......
I hope you do.

Already seen it, thanks.




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




I won't watch, I am just not really interested in anything he has to say, just another atheist Evangelist, if it's not a religion why preach it, why try to win converts as Dawkins does. I just don't get it


Religious beliefs are dangerous and irrational. You have the right to ignore the facts of information but don't complain about people who point out your ignorance to rational information.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Prove what? That they are not propagandist?

That is proving a negative, that isn't how it works.


Nm it was cleared up about the video.
edit on thThu, 12 Nov 2015 17:39:48 -0600America/Chicago1120154880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Tyson:
"If your religion is making testable claims about the physical world, be ready for the methods and tools of science to show that it's false."

Reminds me of the Dalai Lama:


edit on 11/12/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther


So you want to prohibit candidates from discussing their religion?

Only as much as I want to prohibit preachers from endorsing any of them.

The person's religion isn't supposed to come into it......they say........



because, there's a separation between church and state, and so - we have to trust that a candidate will uphold his oath to do his job as POTUS, and not let his religion dictate who to invade and bomb punish.

All willy-nilly.......



wait

edit on 11/12/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Only as much as I want to prohibit preachers from endorsing any of them.

You just want to ban everything you don't agree with, don't you?

Gotta love social democracy.


because, there's a separation between church and state, and so - we have to trust that a candidate will uphold his oath to do his job as POTUS, and not let his religion dictate who to invade and bomb punish.

And how exactly can you trust that a candidate won't do that if you don't know where that candidate stands?

You outlawed him talking about it, remember?




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

No. I brought up this video and the website to present the disparity.....to members of ATS....and see what people think about it.

Fact is, it says in the COTUS that there shall be no religious test to run for POTUS.

But - in practice, it seems to be a big huge honking deal.

What this signifies to me is that voters want to know what the religious propensities are before they will vote for one of them. Which means, then, that there IS a "religious test", even if unformally. We have only over the last decade rid ourselves of a POTUS who said "God told him to invade Iraq."

Not cool.

Some of us are concerned that a POTUS might listen to "God" in his head and do something horrible because of his faith rather than approaching a crisis rationally and honestly.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



If you are choosing to cast your vote, will this make ANY difference to you?


Religion isn't important to me, but a belief in God is and would definitely affect my vote. I would never knowingly vote for an Atheist to represent me.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther


These idiots do know that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from having a "religious test", don't they?


Yeah....and....
we are talking about the Federal Government election.




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Fact is, it says in the COTUS that there shall be no religious test to run for POTUS.

To whom do you think that restriction applies? What entity is the Constitution prohibiting from establishing a test?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Thanks for the actual response!

Why would you not vote knowingly for an atheist?

The discussion in the OP vid addresses that as well - fairly early on. How people running for office don't dare admit if they are really atheist.

They talk about 'The Clergy Project' (which is an anonymous forum for pastors and preachers to discuss how they are actually atheists, but can't / won't leave their jobs).

So - how do you know, really for real, that just because someone says they are "Southern Baptist" they aren't really atheists working the crowd?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Yeah....and....
we are talking about the Federal Government election.

Who elects federal candidates? The federal government?

May I ask what country you live in?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The "TEST" lies with the voters.

Freedom of "Thinking" is supreme.

Freedom from "Thought Police" is mandatory.




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

wut?


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[a]

en.wikipedia.org...


This does not apply to voters, who are free to apply a religious test or any other test of their devising to their consciences before casting their secret ballot for a candidate for federal office; it only means that the federal government may not refuse to swear-in and seat an elected official based on a religious test of their devising.


Ah.... so, it IS important to you.

I see.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

I live in the USA. 57 years now.

Do you really think the 'voters' elect the candidates?

No. The electoral college does.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Do you really think the 'voters' elect the candidates?

No. The electoral college does.

Realistically, the banks elect the candidates (yes, even the ones on your "side"), but that's a debate to be had elsewhere.

And the electoral college is not the federal government either. As if it mattered, the litmus test restriction doesn't apply to them.




new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join