It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Elect an Agnostic or Atheist for Dogcatcher?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:57 AM
Not that it makes a difference, but has dogcatcher (animal control) ever actually been an elective office in the US? It's said, apparently very truthfully, that no openly agnostic or atheist candidate could ever win an election for so much as a dogcatcher here in "the land of the free." This is substantially different from, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia HOW? All are equally enough complicit in suppressing, disallowing the most basic of critical-logical thinking, the most obvious "no-brainers." It's ultimately more an issue, more the responsibility of the legions of ENABLERS, those who are too apathetic and/or afraid to speak out, than the various religious believers themselves, as far as I can tell. The silence speaks not just volumes, but more like many libraries.

That has nothing to do with the actual existence or nonexistence of any type of singular Supreme Being; it's just the essentials of honesty, objective reality. Mere unproved BELIEFS make no real difference in the big picture, just the actual, unbiased truth, or at least the desire for and pursuit of it.

The extreme irony that President Obama speaks the same basic "religitarded" language as his most vehement detractors of the religious conservative "right" would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and loathsome. Two recent examples of his Bible-based preaching come to mind: Most recently he mentioned "Original Sin" as though it's a proved-by-definition fact, and at the funeral of the slain South Carolina minister last June he said, quite emphatically, "Grace is something that comes only from God, not from humans." Period, end of story, right? No grace -- mercy, forgiveness etc. -- can come from humans at all, ever, only from an allegedly single Being whom there is nothing resembling compelling evidence, let alone proof, even exists. In a sufficiently intelligent and moral civilization, that type of dangerously cultist mentality would be unacceptable and nonexistent, at least in a position of political power. Could such ghastly-grim, utterly unproved religious beliefs from Obama be, at least in his case, an indication of his own psychopathic tendencies? (That's a question, not a veiled assertion).

Whatever the truth is about God or "God" -- whichever is real if either -- and even if it can never be determined with 100% certainty, the real objective or goal is or should be in thinking, feeling, doing, BEING more godly, in a more moral, honest and intelligent way, and not abdicating responsibility (at all, in any way, even slightly) by deferring, putting everything on an alleged someone or anyone of the unknown/unproved who just might not exist.

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:36 AM
People are allowed to have their opinions about what makes someone trustworthy or not, whether it is a valid reason or not. Most people vote based on what they see in tv, what makes that basis any better?
edit on 27/10/15 by Cinrad because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:38 AM
Name calling, is that your best shot
Not only was your post unreadable and nonsensical, you resorted to name calling to make yourself come across as better than your opponents

Delete your post and try again, please

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:55 AM
a reply to: Raggedyman

I put QUOTES around the word to de-legitimize the term as much as possible, but there is still ENOUGH legitimacy in that pejorative because it connotes the sheer lunacy, or at least lack of intelligence, of giving more credence, authority, power to mere BELIEFS than (proved-by-definition) real facts.

Nothing unreadable or nonsensical from me. I expect plenty of hurt feelings. Flame on, no worries.

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:57 AM
a reply to: Lightworth

I stopped reading when I came across that word. And I'm not religious AT ALL.

I agree with Cinrad. People are free to make judgments about whom they trust, based on whatever criteria they wish. THAT is truly an indicator of "the land of the free". If we were disallowed from doing that, freedom would be a joke.

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:03 AM
a reply to: Lightworth

The extreme irony that President Obama speaks the same basic "religitarded" language as his most vehement detractors of the religious conservative "right" would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and loathsome.

This - is the whole thing

What will society permit? We make a big deal about how free we are nowadays - we can believe what we want - say what we want. Gay folk can get married now for crying out loud - amazing

But - our president must believe in God - and not just any god either. He or she has to at least be able to fake it well enough to past the smell test

I have my own suspicions about Obama. I have some thoughts about the Pope too :-)

So - how free are we? There is a cult of thinking we have to get past before we can call ourselves a free society

That means everyone should be free to think and believe what they want without fear of reprisal

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:09 AM
a reply to: Lightworth

Nothing unreadable or nonsensical from me. I expect plenty of hurt feelings. Flame on, no worries.

I wouldn't worry about it Lightworth - you're not playing to a crowd that worries about political correctness


Or - are you? That's worth another thread right there...

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:04 PM
kinda like the saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar

vinegar kills them so they do not come near it and also honey is not going to catch any flies cause they stay away from it

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:47 AM
It seems what religious people and their enablers (irrationally) fear most is, if there ever could be a popular enough agnostic or atheist politician (at least in the US), it would *certainly* lead to some kind of draconian imposition of new laws against freedom of thought, speech, belief, expression as in the former Soviet Union. Be assured that it's not possible to replace the power and influence of ONE set of mere beliefs, religions, with ANOTHER set of mere beliefs, atheism. It would take some kind of unimaginably huge and, I dare say, Apocalyptic breakthrough(s) in science and truth in general to "take the wind out of the sails" of religion, and even then it might not necessarily mean their utter destruction, but definitely the oh-so-sweet end of their political power and influence. Well, one can hope and dream, at least...

Truth is the only real weapon against all types of fanaticism, which includes the unrecognized or under-recognized types. It's all about winning hearts and minds, not the existing paradigm of utterly insane and endless wars, terrorism, violence in general, rule by secrecy etc.
edit on 28-10-2015 by Lightworth because: clarity

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:33 PM
Is God man's biggest blunder or is man God's biggest blunder?


There are no facts, just interpretations...


new topics

top topics


log in