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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
seems to me like tyson and dawkins are tired of having the same discussion over and over just because half the world cant decide whether to accept/respect their answers or to what degree. they have given their professional educated opinions, take it or leave it.
edit on 12-11-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther


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

Oh, I'm well aware....Got no quarrel with that at all.

But - aren't the governors all "super-delegates"?
Maybe I've got that wrong, though.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

But - aren't the governors all "super-delegates"?
Maybe I've got that wrong, though.

Are state governors federal officers?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Right on. Haven't seen it yet. I'll watch this in about an hour.


Lucid conversation

Those are the best kind



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



Thanks for the actual response!

Why would you not vote knowingly for an atheist?


Very simple.

When we vote we vote for someone that represents us and that is in fact what we are supposed to do in politics. Someone without a belief in God doesn't represent me or my values.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

So; You have a predisposition that atheists are amoral or immoral, then?

(Because - that's not the case. Not at all. Yet, of course, I respect your freedom to believe that.)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Sounds interesting, Dawkins with answers and also listening.
Not his normal style that's for sure.

I won't watch, I am just not really interested in anything he has to say


Which I have very little doubt has been your position from the start, and yet somehow you feel informed enough to know what his normal style is, for sure! Give me a break.

Let's take for example William Lane Craig. I don't side with him at all. Yet I am very familiar with his 'normal style'. I am so because I have watched many full debates of his. I'm informed.

If you want to actually be informed about Dawkins you have to watch and listen to him. Otherwise you're just parroting some slander you heard about Dawkins.
edit on 12-11-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So; You have a predisposition that atheists are amoral or immoral, then?


That and or this is a Christian Nation!

Heh.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus



Very simple. When we vote we vote for someone that represents us and that is in fact what we are supposed to do in politics. Someone without a belief in God doesn't represent me or my values.


Your values don't represent the whole country, so why should that criteria be considered as a deal breaker for the position of commander and chief? Your belief has been losing its grip on the nation for decades and eventually the country will have atheists elected to that position. It's the only logical presumption.
edit on 12-11-2015 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Metallicus

So; You have a predisposition that atheists are amoral or immoral, then?

(Because - that's not the case. Not at all. Yet, of course, I respect your freedom to believe that.)




I am saying that I have a belief in God and that is important to me when I decide who will represent me. Why would I vote for someone that doesn't share my beliefs and values?

This doesn't mean that you can't vote for an Atheist, but I wouldn't since their secular view is generally in opposition to individual freedom and my conservative leanings.

Why would it surprise you that someone wouldn't vote for someone that doesn't share their beliefs and values?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Metallicus



Very simple. When we vote we vote for someone that represents us and that is in fact what we are supposed to do in politics. Someone without a belief in God doesn't represent me or my values.


Your values don't represent the whole country, so why should that criteria be considered as a deal breaker for the position of commander and chief? Your belief has been losing its grip on the nation for decades and eventually the country will have atheists elected to that position. It's the only logical presumption.


It is a deal breaker for me, not necessarily for others. I would expect most people vote for people that share their world view. I am perplexed as to why you find this confusing. Technically we already have an Atheist as President because I believe Obama is a Secular Atheist.

ETA: No one here has values that represent the whole country, however, more people believe in a God than don't in the United States. It should come as no surprise that many people don't want an Atheist representing them.
edit on 2015/11/12 by Metallicus because: ETA



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I would expect most people vote for people that share their world view I am perplexed as to why you find this confusing.

Of course secularists always vote for religious candidates [namely Christian] because we have no other choice.

That said, I would definitely vote for a religious candidate even if there were also an atheist candidate, if I agreed with his/her positions the most and they made it clear they supported a wall of separation between church and state. I would never vote for a candidate that gave the impression they think it's a christian nation.


Technically we already have an Atheist as President because I believe Obama is a Secular Atheist.

That's not a technicality, that's your opinion. Technically, he says he's Christian.


however, more people believe in a God than don't in the United States. It should come as no surprise that many people don't want an Atheist representing them.

Surprising? No. It's not.

It's just very unfortunate. This whole Christian Nation thing is in direct opposition to what the USA was founded on. To have religious freedom no one religion can be elevated above the other. Which is what many Christians seem to want. They often don't support this wall of separation. It's anti-American, but apparently pro-Christian.
edit on 12-11-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Many have on ATS many many times.
If you choose to be ignorant about it be my guest.


The problem with evolutionists is that they are almost always atheists as well. They claim that you can't have a God and have evolution. Well, why the hell not?


It is only recently that there has been this extremist vibe in the religious community with people believing the Earth is only so many years old. When I was growing up, I believed in God and knew evolution was true because it was scientific. In the Middle Ages, why shouldn't one be able to believe that the Earth rotates around the sun and believe in God?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Metallicus

So; You have a predisposition that atheists are amoral or immoral, then?

(Because - that's not the case. Not at all. Yet, of course, I respect your freedom to believe that.)




I am saying that I have a belief in God and that is important to me when I decide who will represent me. Why would I vote for someone that doesn't share my beliefs and values?

This doesn't mean that you can't vote for an Atheist, but I wouldn't since their secular view is generally in opposition to individual freedom and my conservative leanings.

Why would it surprise you that someone wouldn't vote for someone that doesn't share their beliefs and values?


its more than possible to be a wise, moral, upstanding leader without a deity. do you think stephen hawking would fail the office of commander in chief? or that richard dawkins would embarrass himself and his city as mayor? you seem to imply that their sense of decency and reason is somehow skewed. perhaps you could explain that in further detail.

lets ask you this: what can a politician who recognizes a higher power do, that a politician who doesnt, cant?
edit on 12-11-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Your personal beliefs about the current president are irrelevant, though I'm very skeptical about his professed beliefs as well. A religious world view has no merit to invalidate nor validate any of the candidate's proposed policies. Your logic dictates that as long as they share your world view, God-fearing,libertarian principles than that has more merit than a candidate's tax policy,Immigration policy,foreign policy and economic policy.

Simply put, you should care more about their political worldview than their religious. Religion doesn't own the rights to ethics and morality.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

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.

That's a very real concern of mine.

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”
Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

G-d is described and portrayed in all Hebrew and Christian scripture as choosing selectively who interacts with Him. Thereby only a select few are His chosen. He is subversive to humanity, yet judges all. One position of power who few may know, whom few have been witness to, but G-d knows all.

Men, or women, of power, of impression, are not chosen vesicles. They are drunk on their own thoughts. Chosen implies discrimination, implies subjectivity. There may be Chosen, but not by an omnipotent, omniscient, objective G-d.

We as humans are at a crossroad with Religion, specifically a god. Will we choose subjectivity or objectivity? Which god will we choose? Free will? The paths are clear. Subjectivity leads to one, objectivity leads to all.

Is your god one or all? One human does not fit either answer. Pretty simple, it is either Him alone or all of us.

HINT, He doesn't want to be alone, and all of us are Him. THE paradox.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, I get it. Truly I do. btw I'm not an atheist.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well I finished it. Was a good dialogue between them. Too tired to write a response to it. I'll write one when I wake up


Not surprised I found myself agreeing with Dawkins more since I lean more towards antitheism than Tyson does.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Awesome, I'm glad you watched it!! I'll look forward to hearing your reactions.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join