Election Night 2004 - Page 7

***CaptHayfever*** · 11-08-2004, 01:24 AM

It has a tendency to not work on large-scale models. Only in small-scale application can communism hope to have any sort of long-term success.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Koga · 11-08-2004, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Link47:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Koga:
I think it's pretty sad that your country's fate is being decided by white male Christians, especially the fundamentalist ones. I'm not against every churchgoer.

CNN didn't say that ALL war-veterans and churchgoers voted Bush, and I was just quoting CNN.

The same ammount of "evangelicals" that voted in the last election voted in this one. And Americans are more religious than Europeans, hence why we are more concerned about religion than you atheist buggers. </font>[/quote]I saw a documentary once about these evangelicals. Apparantly you can win Presidency if you get all their votes alone, which is why Bush got elected twice.

Link2000 · 11-08-2004, 10:20 AM

They didn't all vote Koga, especially in the 2000 election.

Koga · 11-08-2004, 11:36 AM

You mean the evangelics didn't all vote? I think that documentary I mentioned (which was about the 2000 election) showed that if Bush could get (nearly) all the evangelics to vote, and they would surely vote for him because of the moral issues, he could win. According to the documentary that's where nearly all his 2000 votes came from (although he didn't really win).

Link2000 · 11-08-2004, 12:45 PM

About 4 million stayed at home. There was only like a 50% turnout rate that election though, so the same kind of problems existed for Gore.

Erdawn Il Deus · 11-08-2004, 02:02 PM

Electing a political figure for religious reasons is stupid.

There.

I said it.

ocarinagirl · 11-08-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Erdawn Il Duce:
Electing a political figure for religious reasons is stupid.

Agreed. *nod*

Parrakarry · 11-08-2004, 03:43 PM

Well, if, because of said figure's religious beliefs, he believes in different things than you do, it's not necessarily stupid.

Link47 · 11-08-2004, 06:54 PM

Religion has set our understandings of right and wrong. Why is it wrong to kill a person? Because it is not socially acceptable because of our religious teaching. In one way or another, it is impossible to escape religion.

El Barto · 11-09-2004, 01:17 AM

I disagree. Those values, such as murder, are instinctive to people- it must be so for us to exist in any kind of society (Murder is extremely common in the kind of primitive hunter gatherer tribes we evolved in; the tribes simply couldn't sustain themselves if people killed one another whenever the thought occurred to them).

Rather, I think that religious doctrine tends to base itself on on those values. A simple take on natural law is just, "Don't step on other people's toes," whether that means taking something of theirs, cheating on their spouses, or killing them. Morality based on religious doctrine is rules that are arbitrary according to natural law, such as certain dietary restrictions, or restrictrions on homosexuality.

[ November 09, 2004, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: El Barto ]

Koga · 11-09-2004, 05:41 AM

I totally agree with El Barto. You don't need religion for basic moral values.

imported_ · 11-09-2004, 12:48 PM

Okay, but which candidate was pro-murder? None of them. Which candidate was against abortion? Not the Catholic one. There are certainly people who are pro-life for religious reasons. Many of them, I'm sure, are Catholic. They voted, probably, for W. I don't see that as wrong at all. Personally, I have non-religious reasons for being pro-life, but I still support W in his pro-life stance because, regardless of how he got there, he and I support the same ends.

There is no "Religion of Homophobia." There is no religious doctrine in place here. People don't like gay marriage - it has to do with the word "marriage" and "gay" being put together. It has to do with how people are raised, and what cultures and traditions they adhere to - religion is only a player in that. I'm Catholic, and so is my mother. But we feel differently about the gay marriage issue. It's not religion at all, even though it looks like it. I'm not denying religion plays a role, but to say that people aren't allowed to express their views and concerns about values in this country that coincide with religion in some aspects is stepping over the line.

Koga · 11-09-2004, 05:15 PM

There's my old Tik again.

I just think people should think about more than religion. I think many people only voted Bush, because he is a more devout Christian than Kerry (or at least appears to be so).

Personally, I don't think moral issues are that important for an election. I worry more about the economy.

Link47 · 11-09-2004, 05:41 PM

There's nothing wrong with being religious or following your religion. Why have athiests developed this condesending attitude towards religious people, when many atheists were driven away from religion by the condesending attitudes of the religious people they are now looking down on?

Super Shy Guy · 11-09-2004, 10:52 PM

That's a pretty large generalization, since not all atheists "leave" religious just because of "condescending attitudes."

I don't mind people being religious, as long as they don't force it on other people.

**Prince Toad** · 11-09-2004, 11:00 PM

^^^Classic Dutch. [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img]

Koga · 11-10-2004, 06:11 AM

He, I suppose so.

I have never been religious, L47 so that theory doesn't work for me (and many other atheists).

Like Carter said, I don't mind people being religious as long as they don't force it on other people. When you vote for a person for religious reasons, you hope he will force them onto the rest of the population.

imported_ · 11-10-2004, 01:34 PM

I agree that there were probably a lot of people who voted for Bush because he was "more devout" and little else. Probably not enough to swing the election, but I still agree with you that that does not make a sufficient reason to vote for somebody.

Then again, if a person can justify to themselves that the basis they are using to vote for someone is sufficient, I don't suppose I can really tell them they're wrong. For example, Bush's pro-life stance was enough to keep me from ever deciding between the two, despite a number of areas where I thought Kerry was stronger. Now, Bolt will tell you that Abortion is not a big enough issue on which to decide my vote, but I obviously disagree. So me saying to these people that their means of selecting a candidate is insufficient or improper would probably not be taken well by them.

***CaptHayfever*** · 11-10-2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

I have never been religious, L47 so that theory doesn't work for me (and many other atheists).

Which is probably why he said many, not all.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Koga · 11-11-2004, 09:58 AM

It still sounded too much like a generalisation.

11-08-2004, 01:24 AM	#121
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,804 Thanks: 265 Thanked 943 Times in 574 Posts Points: 118,178.15 Bank: 1,884.44 Total Points: 120,062.58 Donate	It has a tendency to not work on large-scale models. Only in small-scale application can communism hope to have any sort of long-term success. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

11-08-2004, 10:20 AM	#123
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Points: 16,899.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 17,703.37 Donate	They didn't all vote Koga, especially in the 2000 election.

11-08-2004, 11:36 AM	#124
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,095 Thanks: 104 Thanked 183 Times in 117 Posts Points: 107,845.07 Bank: 21,640.09 Total Points: 129,485.16 Donate	You mean the evangelics didn't all vote? I think that documentary I mentioned (which was about the 2000 election) showed that if Bush could get (nearly) all the evangelics to vote, and they would surely vote for him because of the moral issues, he could win. According to the documentary that's where nearly all his 2000 votes came from (although he didn't really win).

11-08-2004, 12:45 PM	#125
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Points: 16,899.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 17,703.37 Donate	About 4 million stayed at home. There was only like a 50% turnout rate that election though, so the same kind of problems existed for Gore.

11-08-2004, 02:02 PM	#126
Erdawn Il Deus Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Threading the jeweled thrones of earth under my sandalled feet Gender: Posts: 2,990 Thanks: 4 Thanked 45 Times in 39 Posts Points: 23,787.11 Bank: 788.45 Total Points: 24,575.56 Donate	Electing a political figure for religious reasons is stupid. There. I said it.

11-08-2004, 03:43 PM	#128
Parrakarry Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 10,683 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 9,479.81 Bank: 621.69 Total Points: 10,101.50 Donate	Well, if, because of said figure's religious beliefs, he believes in different things than you do, it's not necessarily stupid.

11-08-2004, 06:54 PM	#129
Link47 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: USA Posts: 8,377 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 27,739.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 28,239.00 Donate	Religion has set our understandings of right and wrong. Why is it wrong to kill a person? Because it is not socially acceptable because of our religious teaching. In one way or another, it is impossible to escape religion.

11-09-2004, 01:17 AM	#130
El Barto Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,708 Thanks: 1 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Points: 1,516.12 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 2,016.12 Donate	I disagree. Those values, such as murder, are instinctive to people- it must be so for us to exist in any kind of society (Murder is extremely common in the kind of primitive hunter gatherer tribes we evolved in; the tribes simply couldn't sustain themselves if people killed one another whenever the thought occurred to them). Rather, I think that religious doctrine tends to base itself on on those values. A simple take on natural law is just, "Don't step on other people's toes," whether that means taking something of theirs, cheating on their spouses, or killing them. Morality based on religious doctrine is rules that are arbitrary according to natural law, such as certain dietary restrictions, or restrictrions on homosexuality. [ November 09, 2004, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: El Barto ]

11-09-2004, 05:41 AM	#131
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,095 Thanks: 104 Thanked 183 Times in 117 Posts Points: 107,845.07 Bank: 21,640.09 Total Points: 129,485.16 Donate	I totally agree with El Barto. You don't need religion for basic moral values.

11-09-2004, 12:48 PM	#132
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,600.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,100.00 Donate	Okay, but which candidate was pro-murder? None of them. Which candidate was against abortion? Not the Catholic one. There are certainly people who are pro-life for religious reasons. Many of them, I'm sure, are Catholic. They voted, probably, for W. I don't see that as wrong at all. Personally, I have non-religious reasons for being pro-life, but I still support W in his pro-life stance because, regardless of how he got there, he and I support the same ends. There is no "Religion of Homophobia." There is no religious doctrine in place here. People don't like gay marriage - it has to do with the word "marriage" and "gay" being put together. It has to do with how people are raised, and what cultures and traditions they adhere to - religion is only a player in that. I'm Catholic, and so is my mother. But we feel differently about the gay marriage issue. It's not religion at all, even though it looks like it. I'm not denying religion plays a role, but to say that people aren't allowed to express their views and concerns about values in this country that coincide with religion in some aspects is stepping over the line.

11-09-2004, 05:15 PM	#133
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,095 Thanks: 104 Thanked 183 Times in 117 Posts Points: 107,845.07 Bank: 21,640.09 Total Points: 129,485.16 Donate	There's my old Tik again. I just think people should think about more than religion. I think many people only voted Bush, because he is a more devout Christian than Kerry (or at least appears to be so). Personally, I don't think moral issues are that important for an election. I worry more about the economy.

11-09-2004, 05:41 PM	#134
Link47 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: USA Posts: 8,377 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 27,739.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 28,239.00 Donate	There's nothing wrong with being religious or following your religion. Why have athiests developed this condesending attitude towards religious people, when many atheists were driven away from religion by the condesending attitudes of the religious people they are now looking down on?

11-09-2004, 10:52 PM	#135
Super Shy Guy Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the seven seas Posts: 8,969 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 9,410.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 9,910.00 Donate	That's a pretty large generalization, since not all atheists "leave" religious just because of "condescending attitudes." I don't mind people being religious, as long as they don't force it on other people.

11-09-2004, 11:00 PM	#136
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,428 Thanks: 43 Thanked 59 Times in 50 Posts Points: 46,004.55 Bank: 26,666.46 Total Points: 72,671.01 Donate	^^^Classic Dutch. [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img]

11-10-2004, 06:11 AM	#137
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,095 Thanks: 104 Thanked 183 Times in 117 Posts Points: 107,845.07 Bank: 21,640.09 Total Points: 129,485.16 Donate	He, I suppose so. I have never been religious, L47 so that theory doesn't work for me (and many other atheists). Like Carter said, I don't mind people being religious as long as they don't force it on other people. When you vote for a person for religious reasons, you hope he will force them onto the rest of the population.

11-10-2004, 01:34 PM	#138
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,600.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,100.00 Donate	I agree that there were probably a lot of people who voted for Bush because he was "more devout" and little else. Probably not enough to swing the election, but I still agree with you that that does not make a sufficient reason to vote for somebody. Then again, if a person can justify to themselves that the basis they are using to vote for someone is sufficient, I don't suppose I can really tell them they're wrong. For example, Bush's pro-life stance was enough to keep me from ever deciding between the two, despite a number of areas where I thought Kerry was stronger. Now, Bolt will tell you that Abortion is not a big enough issue on which to decide my vote, but I obviously disagree. So me saying to these people that their means of selecting a candidate is insufficient or improper would probably not be taken well by them.

11-11-2004, 09:58 AM	#140
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,095 Thanks: 104 Thanked 183 Times in 117 Posts Points: 107,845.07 Bank: 21,640.09 Total Points: 129,485.16 Donate	It still sounded too much like a generalisation.