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.
why would you take anything to the extreme? That seems unreasonable.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Woodcarver
How can I trust anyone at all, given that sociopathy exists in approximately one percent of a given population?
How can I trust anyone at all, given that many people are motivated more by their desire to earn money than they are to do what is right? How can I trust anyone at all, given that there are countless reasons that I should not trust a damned thing, person, or idea that anyone has ever had?
Lets take that reasoning to the logical extreme!
Seriously though, there have been a great many Christians who were also great scientific minds, many of the greatest mathematicians of the ancient world were Muslim, some of the most fantastic architects ever born to the world were religious fanatics. Religious belief does not make someone a mental incompetent, or a fantasist. It just means they have different spiritual beliefs than you do, which is only a problem if you have a phobic mindset in the first place.
You see, the thing you need to be able to say about a person of faith, is that they have more going on than just their beliefs. For example, I have beliefs. But I also have a very deep appreciation for the sciences, for the arts, and very importantly, for the idea that regardless of which faith a person has, or whether they have none at all, they must be served equally by the government and the law, because otherwise both government and the law cease to have relevance and must be replaced by something new. I also believe that faith should not inspire policy, that policy should be secular, as should the administration of that policy.
Pence has no faith, as previously discussed, but lets assume for a moment that he actually GENUINELY believed in Jesus, and actually acted like it, rather than using his stated beliefs as a shield for hate politics. Lets assume that he also had the understanding that in policy and administration terms, his beliefs did not matter, because what really mattered was approaching all things from an egalitarian and even handed position, applying law and policy equally to all, regardless of their beliefs, status and all that.
Now, if that were the case, could you honestly state that you had a problem with a person of faith administrating on behalf of the citizen, given that the fact of their faith did not effect their performance?
I tend to have varying degrees of trust for people based on an individual analysis of how well what they say and what they do compare to each other and their over all ability to Explain reality in a way that makes sense on a reasonable level. I don’t know how you come to these conclusions. That’s kind of up to you.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Woodcarver
How can I trust anyone at all, given that sociopathy exists in approximately one percent of a given population?
How can I trust anyone at all, given that many people are motivated more by their desire to earn money than they are to do what is right? How can I trust anyone at all, given that there are countless reasons that I should not trust a damned thing, person, or idea that anyone has ever had?
Lets take that reasoning to the logical extreme!
Seriously though, there have been a great many Christians who were also great scientific minds, many of the greatest mathematicians of the ancient world were Muslim, some of the most fantastic architects ever born to the world were religious fanatics. Religious belief does not make someone a mental incompetent, or a fantasist. It just means they have different spiritual beliefs than you do, which is only a problem if you have a phobic mindset in the first place.
You see, the thing you need to be able to say about a person of faith, is that they have more going on than just their beliefs. For example, I have beliefs. But I also have a very deep appreciation for the sciences, for the arts, and very importantly, for the idea that regardless of which faith a person has, or whether they have none at all, they must be served equally by the government and the law, because otherwise both government and the law cease to have relevance and must be replaced by something new. I also believe that faith should not inspire policy, that policy should be secular, as should the administration of that policy.
Pence has no faith, as previously discussed, but lets assume for a moment that he actually GENUINELY believed in Jesus, and actually acted like it, rather than using his stated beliefs as a shield for hate politics. Lets assume that he also had the understanding that in policy and administration terms, his beliefs did not matter, because what really mattered was approaching all things from an egalitarian and even handed position, applying law and policy equally to all, regardless of their beliefs, status and all that.
Now, if that were the case, could you honestly state that you had a problem with a person of faith administrating on behalf of the citizen, given that the fact of their faith did not effect their performance?
originally posted by: TrueBrit
No one who would rather control someone than leave them to their own devices, ought to be in charge of anything more important than making the damned tea.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TrueBrit
I’m more concerned that elected officials believe in sky fairies.
Look -- you're totally allowed to believe what you want. It's a free country. But don't make yourself look like an idiot while trying to imply that you're too "enlightened" to believe in God.
Making a "sky fairy" comment doesn't make you come off as superior or more intelligent, except perhaps among your friends who also draw their self-worth from thinking about how smart they are for being atheists. It just makes you sound ignorant and close-minded, revealing your narrow worldview in which explanations other than your own are always wrong. You are operating under a closed system of Truth in which you must deride or ignore anyone's experiences that don't fit into your model of the world.
Mocking the "Sky Fairy," or How Not to Convert Me to Atheism
From the outside, those two religions are on equal footing, although islamic countries do seem to be more abusive and less apt to accept other world views.
originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TrueBrit
I’m more concerned that elected officials believe in sky fairies.
I'll take one that believes in 'sky fairies' over one that believes in the "Religion of Peace" any day...
Look -- you're totally allowed to believe what you want. It's a free country. But don't make yourself look like an idiot while trying to imply that you're too "enlightened" to believe in God.
Making a "sky fairy" comment doesn't make you come off as superior or more intelligent, except perhaps among your friends who also draw their self-worth from thinking about how smart they are for being atheists. It just makes you sound ignorant and close-minded, revealing your narrow worldview in which explanations other than your own are always wrong. You are operating under a closed system of Truth in which you must deride or ignore anyone's experiences that don't fit into your model of the world.
Mocking the "Sky Fairy," or How Not to Convert Me to Atheism