Would you vote for an Athiest President?

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes that is true, officially they were born whatever, but take Saddam for instance, he has given interviews where he has clearly said that he isn;t anything. he just beelives in power. Stalin is his hero, and has spoken a great deal about his "idol", with one quote being "Do you really think Stalin was a communist". In case you missed a point in history, is that people often pretend to be something they are not to get and stay in power to appease to the sensibilities ofg the people. This is very common in dictatorships.

While it is true that people will do or be anything for power, thats hardly the point. Saddam is a sunni muslim, he has to be to govern as anything less would not be tolerated.

As for kadafi as well, again he really is one in public to people outside, but as people have noted he really isn't.

What people? the fairies at the bottom of the garden?

If sadamm or Kadafi (BTW these are phenoticized words, so spelling is really just a function of sounding out a dialect you hear) were really muslims, they would have established a caliphate (a divinely supported reigme as defined and mandated in the Koran) of some sort, which they haven't.

I imagine that such attempts would meet the same fate as similar attemts in 1926. And who do you think would be caliph? Saddam? or perhaps the desendents of the last Ottoman Emperor? who were the last rulers of any muslim nation to have the title. A caliphite does not detirmine wether a person is islamic any more than being the pope makes John Paul 2 catholic.

This is a difficuly subject, and there is allot of material, and some concepts that aren't readily understood.[/quote]

[Azeron]

well reviewing your arguments. it really is apparent you have allot to study. I could argue with you and drag you through history on why some people are considered aethisits, ritualistic dieism, calphiates and the lot, but like I said, I am not here to be your teacher. Jusdt as mike doesn't teach a course on advanced pyshics on the boards, I am not running an advanced history course here as well.

We could go over "why" or "prove it", but it would really be like a recursive algorythm. You have to have background befroe you can make a statement or ask a question. As for how truthful the statement is, why not just look at the century and tally the death toll between atheists and secretarians, you will find the aethisits win hands down in the total number of people killed. Not even close.

[Stuart Mackey]

well reviewing your arguments. it really is apparent you have allot to study. I could argue with you and drag you through history on why some people are considered aethisits, ritualistic dieism, calphiates and the lot, but like I said, I am not here to be your teacher. Jusdt as mike doesn't teach a course on advanced pyshics on the boards, I am not running an advanced history course here as well.

Arrogant arent you? Just as you presume that atheists must have some form of 'ailment' and couldnt back it up, you do it again. You are not a teacher of any kind and have yet to display any knowledge of history whatsoever. Oh and BTW, not a very good strawman above.

We could go over "why" or "prove it", but it would really be like a recursive algorythm. You have to have background befroe you can make a statement or ask a question. As for how truthful the statement is, why not just look at the century and tally the death toll between atheists and secretarians, you will find the aethisits win hands down in the total number of people killed. Not even close.

And he dodges again! compleate inability to post a argument, just expecte people to belive whatever he says as if it were gospel. Its a interesting way to go through life ya know, when ever someone questions your authority, just tell them, in a condesending manner, that they obviously havent the background to understand your wordly knowlegde so it is pointless to even discuss it. This way you can go through life never having to justify a position to anyone, of course everyone will think you are an idiot, but you know that you right bacause no one ever refuted you!.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes that is true, officially they were born whatever, but take Saddam for instance, he has given interviews where he has clearly said that he isn;t anything. he just beelives in power. Stalin is his hero, and has spoken a great deal about his "idol", with one quote being "Do you really think Stalin was a communist". In case you missed a point in history, is that people often pretend to be something they are not to get and stay in power to appease to the sensibilities ofg the people. This is very common in dictatorships.

As for kadafi as well, again he really is one in public to people outside, but as people have noted he really isn't.

If sadamm or Kadafi (BTW these are phenoticized words, so spelling is really just a function of sounding out a dialect you hear) were really muslims, they would have established a caliphate (a divinely supported reigme as defined and mandated in the Koran) of some sort, which they haven't.

This is a difficuly subject, and there is allot of material, and some concepts that aren't readily understood.

Turkey is a Muslim nation, yet don't have a Caliphate. Or Egypt for that matter, which is a Republic. Or Yemen, which is a Republic as well. There are plenty of Nations with leaders who are Muslims that are Fundementalist states at all.

[Lusankya]

What does this say about aethists. absolutely nothing. but when it comes to power, its probably best to have someone who has the fear of god in him condemning his eternal soul to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Do you mean fear of God as in Hitler (of 6 million dead Jews fame) fear of God?
Taliban (of helping Osama bin Laden fame) fear of God?
Richard I (of the Crusades fame) fear of God?
Spanish inquisition (of really nasty buggers) fear of God?

What kind of fear of god do you mean?

Just curious.

[RayCav of ASVS]

Settle down, RayCav, fuck damn rimjob asshole shit fuck, see I can swear too. It was a joke. I'd post the definition but I think you've seen it before in a... erm, similar forum. Carter was in charge when 2 Blackhawks went in to rescue some hostages, see, and they got shot down. Hence my smily being the character. This made Jimmy look bad, paved the way for Reagan and the intense military buildfup that got us through "Vietnam Syndrome" and made us the cuntry we are today, puissant and more heavy-duty than anybody. Geeze, take it easy--I said "hawk" and 1 or 2 random bombings here and there in the name of some ill-formed policy do not a hawk make. Abstract ideas about an eternal war, on the other hand, made real, do.

Yeah, I know about the Iraqi hostage rescue. Here's some more info

- orignally, they modified two C-130s for super-STOL flight to literally fly into the stadium where the hostages were held, then fly out with them. Instead, they modified I think 5 Ch-53s (Blackhawk wasn't even in service yet:P) into CH-53Rs.
- When they got to the rendevouz point, however, they were ambushed by Iranians with truck mounted .50 cals. One was destroyed, and they had to withdraw. That's why the Pave Lows have two .30 minis, and at least one .50 cal.
- Another one was lost when it collided with a C-130, killing 7.

Yeah, it was a fuckup, and it did cost Carter, but he probably would have lost anyway has history remembers him not for his misfortune with this incident but with the sad state of the economy and stagflation. Oh well.

And I thought you were trying to correct me. Oh well.

Mathew Hyde:P

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Yes that is true, officially they were born whatever, but take Saddam for instance, he has given interviews where he has clearly said that he isn;t anything. he just beelives in power. Stalin is his hero, and has spoken a great deal about his "idol", with one quote being "Do you really think Stalin was a communist". In case you missed a point in history, is that people often pretend to be something they are not to get and stay in power to appease to the sensibilities ofg the people. This is very common in dictatorships.

Based on your definition, then anyone who is a dictator, believes in power, idolizes Salin, and pretend to be something they are not, ***must be*** atheist. LOL!!

As for kadafi as well, again he really is one in public to people outside, but as people have noted he really isn't.

Proof?

If sadamm or Kadafi (BTW these are phenoticized words, so spelling is really just a function of sounding out a dialect you hear) were really muslims, they would have established a caliphate (a divinely supported reigme as defined and mandated in the Koran) of some sort, which they haven't.

This is a difficuly subject, and there is allot of material, and some concepts that aren't readily understood.

Then, by your standard, any ruler which happens to be a moslem ***MUST BE*** an atheist if they don't establish a caliphate-style government. You may add King Fahd, Sultan Bolkiah, and Emir Al-Sabah to your "atheist rulers" list.

BTW, I'm a moslem. So if I've been elected as a President of Indonesia (my country), and I'm *NOT* going to establish a caliphate, then I will be an atheist. ROTFLMAO!!! You're as moronic as most fundamentalist moslem in my country.



Anyway, guys, Azeron's whole point is utterly laughable . Consider these:

-1-. Azeron argued that any atheist ruler must be *bad* (ie doing bad things to their people, be a dictator, etc).

-2-. To "proof" his argument, he gave us example of bad rulers througout history, and pointing out that they are all atheist.

-3-. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a single proof that his example rules are atheist. In fact, as far as we all know, not even Hitler was an atheist. Azeron cannot proof that Attila was an atheist either; sure Attila wasn't christian, but doesn't automatically translate that he was an atheist too.

-4-. As last (and pathetic) resort, in defending his views that all his sample rulers are atheist, he pointed out that their behavior doesn't strictly adhere to their religion. IMHO, this is the most ***laughable*** part.
So what if Saddam Hussein is not a good moslem? Does it automatically mean that he must be an atheist? IMO, Azeron is much worse than the Talibans.
BTW, I'm a moslem, and by Azeron's standard, if I go clubbing, dancing, and partying, I will no longer a moslem, right? And if I no longer a moslem, then I must be an atheist.

Note: Even IF (and that's a big IF) Azeron can solidly proof that one of his bad rulers (Attila, Hitler, Qhaddafi, etc) is an atheist, he ***STILL*** have to proof whether they act because of their "atheist dogma" (as "postulated" by Azeron.), or SIMPLY because of their greedy and power-lust nature (such traits can be belonged by anyone, regardless whether they are atheist or not) .

Azeron, normally I try not to flame others, but your whole idea is simply the most **MORONIC** and **LAUGHABLE** I have found in this thread. Congratulation!!

PS: There's no such things as "divinely supported regime", moron. Next time you read Koran, read it while using your brain.

[kojikun]

I nominate Azeron as the next troll to be banned. Anyone second this?

[Wicked Pilot]

Azeron says: "Go back to Hell you filthy athiest!"

[Antediluvian]

I would have no problem with an athiest president, as long as he or she was competent, which I would expect of every other potential president.

Hell, I would welcome an athiest president. We need a change.

[Stuart Mackey]

[quote="Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]
[/quote]

Mate, that was as funny as hell, I loved it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yes I would vote for an atheist, but not for that alone, I simply wouldn't care if he was an atheist, I however would not vote for a fundamentalist.

[Straha]

[quote="Azeron"]yes, well abraham lincoln was more of an agnostic at the time of his election, but he became quite the christian during the war. /quote]

Actually he stayed an athiest throughout his life. He was forced to mention god in speaches because he needed to rally support. And if you notice he NEVER mentioned jesus in his speachs.

[starfury]

I would have no problem with an athiest president, as long as he or she was competent, which I would expect of every other potential president.

agreed, the competance of the president is more important to me that anything else.

Yes I would vote for an atheist, but not for that alone, I simply wouldn't care if he was an atheist, I however would not vote for a fundamentalist.

I feel the same way, the atheist part is something that they just happen to be, not their main identity.