re: Would you vote for an open atheist for national political office?

quote:

---

I'd prefer that he treated those people with respect as well.

---

That isn't what I asked.

quote:

---

That isn't what I asked.

---

I guess it would depend on the degree of his comtempt, which group he held in contempt, and what were his views on everything else?

quote:

---

I won't argue that it's not fair, but I will say that the implication seems directly at odds with the narrative of Christianity as God as all loving and benevolent.

---

God is those things but He's more than those things. God is also holy and just. He is also greater than all, even us. To overlook sin entirely would compromise His justice and essentially esteem us more than Himself, which would in a sense be idolatry. That God would not condemn every single human to hell is an evidence of His love and benevolence.

quote:

---

Because the result is that any human not exposed to the story of Jesus and his offered salvation is condemned to hell through no fault of their own. That seems like a condemnation that only a vindictive and petty god would impose. Alternatively, it would be evidence of a god without the sufficient power to extend his influence to all of his created children.

---

I put in bold the part I take issue with the most here because it assumes that we do not deserve eternal punishment. Like I said, we are damned already based on Adam's sin. Federalism is a thing and doesn't seem so bad when people benefit from it, but people sure do complain when they don't get the benefits. But even if you put aside the whole "original sin" thing, every person that has lived (aside from Jesus, if you believe the Bible) has sinned against God and thus deserves Hell. No one is "innocent" from God's point of view. Since no one is innocent, how is God cruel or vindictive to seek justice? He doesn't do it with malice.

quote:

---

Either way, it doesn't square with the claims of Christianity. At best it's self-contradictory and paints god and indifferent to human life. At worst it's malicious.

---

Not at all. The Bible says that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. He sentences to death those who break His law and attempt to usurp His rule as King. Justice doesn't require maliciousness, and it doesn't contradict the Bible's claims of God's love. That God should save anyone from the punishment that we all deserve shows God's love clearly. Or so I believe.

quote:

---

There is zero empirical evidence for the existence of any god

---

Depends on what you count as evidence. You also seek to prove God through natural means. How can science (which bound by the natural and material) sufficiently measure God, which by His nature is supernatural and immaterial?

quote:

---

I made no claim that it proved anything. What I did claim was that it provided an alternative explanation. And given the lack of any other evidence, Occam's Razor leads me to find it to be the most compelling. E.G., you don't need God to explain the feeling of spiritual awe, ergo that sense of spiritual awe doesn't contribute much to the evidence of God.

---

As I said, people are convinced or compelled to believe things for all sorts of reasons. The standards for burden of proof vary widely from person to person. It all boils down to belief. If God could be proven for certain without a shred of doubt, faith would not be necessary; it would just be knowledge. There is merit to faith because it is hard, and depending on the object of the faith, it can be downright impossible without sufficient compulsion.

quote:

---

I agree with you. But it concerns me how often people choose to believe and invest in a world view (like Christianity) without any sufficient evidence.

---

The Christian worldview has a lot going for it, if I may say so myself while acknowledging my bias. There is a lot of good that comes from it and it instills a lot of hope even when days seem very dark. Also, "sufficient" is the key word here. What suffices for one person may not suffice for another based on the kind of evidence a person is looking for.

quote:

---

I guess it would depend on the degree of his comtempt, which group he held in contempt, and what were his views on everything else?

---

Is the same true for an Atheist with contempt for Christianity?

quote:

---

Atheism is, by it's very definition, a lack of belief.

---

100% False.

Agnosticism is by its very definition, a lack of belief.

Atheism is absolute belief.

quote:

---

It makes a big difference when one side is trying to destroy the country.

A person of true faith would not do what the dims have been trying to do.

---

^^^^^ This is an important distinction between bleeding heart Progs/Libs and people of faith. People of faith believe it is incumbent on individuals to care for their fellow man and not some behemoth called government. With individuals the person in need gets kindness, encouragement and a example of how to conduct your life....., with government they get a carrot on a string to chase for life.

quote:

---

100% False.

---

I have no response to you beyond telling you that you are wrong based on the literal definition of the word. Maybe your own definition differs, the definition of atheism is "lack of belief in the existence of gods."

So no, you're wrong.