That's either because he doesn't have the guts to stand up for what he believes in OR he's lying about being a Christian.
Hmmm... so according to you, Obama doesn't seek guidance from the "invisible man in the sky". I find that in direct conflict with his actual words. "And let me tell you, these past two years, they have deepened my faith. The presidency has a funny way of making a person feel the need to pray. Abe Lincoln said, as many of you know, 'I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.'" A person's faith (of lack of) is pretty much woven into them. A typical Christian doesn't need to claim that they are doing something because God would approve of it. Most things that we consider right and good are also things that Christianity says that God would approve of. Once a person of faith reaches adulthood, acting in a way that God would approve is pretty much habitual. So Obama goes out and increases aid to the poor and you say that it is simply the right thing to do. A Christian Democrat says that Christ exhorts us to help the poor, and therefore we should do it. Was the decision based on what God would approve of in his case? Yes. Was it completely independent of God's will in your case? Yes. But why does it matter when the result is the same? And how can you possible distinguish between times when Obama is acting according to his faith, and times when he is acting regardless of his faith?
+1 Im an atheist, but it is obvious to me that not only Mormons, but most people who practice, and actually live by some sort of religion end up being far more successful/productive within their communities. I think the main thing that drives this success is the whole concept ofhaving 1 complete family, you look at the different groups of people who struggle the most today, and inevitably it comes back to the point that they dont have a solid home. This is something that all religions unapologetically push for.. Edit: This also includes western muslims. Why do you think you see so many old brown cabbies, and at the same time so many young brown doctors..... they bust their ass to do something better for their kids, cause thats what they believe in, and they all have a solid home life.
Busting ass for your kids is not religion, does not require any, nor is it reason for any. I think you're confusing separate things. There are plenty of broken homes made by religious families. Generalizations don't make the rule.
Which one do you think i more likely to come from a broken home? A deeply religious person, or one who has no concept of religion? This will go a long ways in telling how partisan you are.
lets make it simple in light of this... being true... Bertrand Russell --- âUnless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless. So... who would your rather have on the nuclear trigger... an atheist or someone who believes they have skin in the meaning of life and eternal life game. Unless you can rule out a Creator... if you think your belief is superior you are really are as big a joke as the people you put down.
I've already explained it's a spurious argument. There is no reason to presume a broken home is any more or less likely because of or despite religion.
Honest or even intelligent would be better and a first for you. You think it's preferable to have someone who thinks they're going to "a better place" with a finger on the nuke button. duuuh
Indeed. For some people this personal definition is cultivated and expressed through religion, while for others it is developed regardless of religion. For those who feel that structured religion has provided this, it is understandable that they would assume others would be benefited by it also. For those who feel like they have the personal strength to develop these virtues without religion, it is understandable that they would view religion as pointless and annoying. But an atheist doesn't have any place telling a believer that they are stupid if that is what the believer feels enables them to develop the very characteristics that we all strive for. On the same token, the believer has no place assuming that atheists can't develop those virtues without religion. I believe that a large portion of our society needs to believe in something greater, to give them purpose and drive them to be productive. It is a very dangerous thing for an atheist to suppose that these people (and society as a whole) would be better served without that driving force regardless of whether specific religious traditions are demonstrably true or false. I was working on a large project awhile back, and while instructing some of my employees, I just couldn't understand why the simplest tasks were so difficult for them. In my mind any intelligent person should just be able to view the task in a reasonable manner and develop some basic understanding of what needed to be done. They kept calling me over for a demonstration on technical aspects of accomplishing the goal. Unfortunately there were numerous times when I made some comment to the effect of, "Come on guys, this is not difficult to figure out. Just use your brain for a second and it will be obvious." After a while they weren't asking for demonstrations and I assumed that they were taking the initiative and getting it done. When I finally checked back in, their progress was painfully slow and half of what they had done was incorrect. In my view it seemed that they had deliberately chosen the most difficult path forward. I was flustered and reprimanded them, while they were discouraged and offended. I learned that it is very dangerous to assume that just because I don't need direction, others shouldn't need it either. Since then I have taken the approach of providing whatever support is necessary and allowing the employee to determine the timeline under which the proper course becomes logical and habitual. So it is with religion. It is not for anyone to decide that any other person doesn't need instruction in life. There are many people who simply won't reach their potential without it. It is very well documented that the deterioration of the strong family unit has a devastating effect on society. It stretches all the way through society from crime to household income. The viability of a Romney presidency has nothing to do with whether Joe Smith found a gold book. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether Romney believes that he did. It has to do with his ability to govern more effectively than his opponent and to recognize the proper role of government in the lives of individuals.