Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by LordsSword

For me the Christian religion gives me reasons to persist even under great stress.

Interesting post. Now try answering the question. =P

That's the answer to the question of why and how you feel your religion helps you to persist in the face of adversity. Now you need to answer the question of why you feel that you could not do so in the absense of religion. Please try to avoid quotes from scripture, if at all possible. The acceptance of scriptural messages presupposes the belief in the religion in question. You are trying to make a case to non-believers, which means that you should base your argument on the lowest common denominator. You must make your point in secular terms, if you wish to convince secular people.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I vote and go for the person who prays. I figure that person has a humble character and doesnt think thay are all high and mighty.

Careful. It's easy to be mislead in that way. Suppose that there was a presidential candidate who claimed to be a devout Christian, but was nothing of the sort in truth. You might never find out.

You'd vote for him, right? Especially if the other candidate was a godless heathen.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

If the heathen is full of anti god statements the person wouldnt get my vote.

That's hardly a fair answer. You see, it's unlikely that any candidate for the presidency of the United States of America would ever have even a single serious "anti-god statement" on the public record, because he represents all Americans, and there are a substantial number of Christians in the American voting public. For the same reason, I question if it is appropriate for a presidential candidate to criticise Islam. Of course such criticism would not have the same devastating effect at the ballot as criticisms aimed at Christianity, but that wouldn't make it appropriate. The President represents American moslems as well as American Christians, which is why I feel that the faith of a candidate is immaterial.

The question is not whether you would support a candidate who actually criticised your faith, but whether you would favour a Christian candidate over a non-Christian, regardless of who is better for the country. Even a non-Christian can protect Christian rights, and he would be bound to do so by the constitution. I would also like to say that I agree entirely with PackRat's post above. We are reading from the same page here.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

I think I'd vote for the guy who doesn't use his religion to attract voters.

That's exactly the attitude I think is best. Being Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or even atheist is basically irrelevant to a candidate's suitability for office. His stated policies are what matter.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I'm just curious why the atheists here havent stated how their belief system makes their life a "good" one. How has atheism and its attendant philosophies encouraged you to be a "good" person? How has your system helped you to be a productive member of society?
I would like to know the atheist standard of what is good & bad and how they strive to measure up.

It's very simple. I know what harms someone else, and I don't do it. No doubt you will choose to overcomplicate this, but it really is that simple. I don't need a religion to tell me what will cause harm to someone.

You also can't talk around this by questioning the meaning of the word "harm". It's pretty clear cut in practice. There are three main kinds of harm that can come to a person.

Please note that this is an ideal, and one which I may not live up to.

1) Physical harm: I don't go around doing things that will cause physical harm, such as hitting people, or using weapons on them. I also don't poison people, or encourage them to do things which might cause physical harm to befall them. I also won't allow someone to come to physical harm in front of my face if I can do anything to prevent it.

2) Material harm: I don't deprive others of the material things which belong to them by taking them. In short, I don't steal. I also don't damage the material things which belong to others, and I don't look the other way while it happens in front of me.

3) Emotional harm: This one is rather more difficult, but I strive to neither say or do things which would be likely to cause emotional trauma to another person. That does not mean that I must always be polite, or that I must never criticise. Instead it means that I must not say or do things with serious and lasting consequences for the emotional well-being of another. A good example would be that I will be faithful to the person with whom I am in a romantic relationship.

It's very simple. It shares some characteristics in common with the Christian moral code, but is not derived from it. Instead it is derived very simply from how I would wish others to treat me. Each person has their own interpretation of where the line is drawn for these things, and their moral guidelines are not relative to mine.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?