An atheist presents God's plan to win an election

Farnaz, Hermant was brought up with Jainism, a less violent or hateful religion would be hard to find.

I also do not believe in God, and find it disconcerting when politicians throw God's name around. I was never comfortable getting "brainwashed" as a child, told to believe in a god I could not see or hear, not unlike the easter bunny and santa. I won't EVER vote for anyone that says God called them to run for office.

Mr. Mehta

"In Hindu mythology, Vena was a great king. However, he became evil and corrupt. The world became so gloomy and dark that the earth-goddess Bhumidevi decided that she would not provide crops to humans anymore. She took form as a cow and went into hiding. Meanwhile, a group of Rishis killed Vena out of anger. They then rubbed the thigh of his corpse, and took out all the evil from his body. Afterwards they rubbed Vena's arm, and the good Prithu emerged. This being was Vishnu incarnate, and as soon as he was born, Vishnu's Sharanga bow fell from heaven into his hands."

This is Hinduism, a religion that dominates and enslaves hundreds of millions, and about which you, Mr. Mehta, probably have some knowledge.

The antisemitic, anti-Islamic, anti-Christian, India and Hinduism defender, secular, does too.

The confusion of religion and state is what enables the enslavement of two hundred million Dalit.

If there were ever a topic more relevant to the church/state debate to which this week's question goes it is Hinduism. There, but for our weakening commitment to the Establishment clause, go we.

Fine essay. Thanks very much. A great nation is becoming a Zoo. The religionists must be removed from the dole and congress. Once that's done, Christine will stop hearing voices.

I'm all for healthy, intellectual debate around this topic. This post, however, reads like a junior high debate class. Posts like this will not help to further the atheist cause. Let Richard Dawkins and the other grownups do the talking for you next time.

Posted by: jedstraw
_____________________________________________

You call this Junior high stuff, and instead recommend Dawkins to do the talking. Don't get me wrong I love Dawkins, almost without exception. But if you consider Hemant Patel incendiary, over Dawkins then you have not read Dawkins at all. Take this from Dawkins's god Delusion, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully". You think Patel tops this? I bought the book after I read just that sentence.

Hear hear, Hemant!

Love the article and the way the Christians get all bent out of shape over the truth. Guess you could call it "tough love" from an atheist.

Good work Hemant!

I, also, see no evidence that any gods, even the one with the name God, exist. Is there a reason that we should treat people who believe in these gods in a special manner?

The sad part is, as the beginning of the column shows, that believers are very easily led to vote for folks who talk the talk, but don't care about gods at all, but know they can manipulate believers. Many of America's believers voted for an apparent unbeliever who talked a good game, Ronald Reagan, over someone who has shown for decades that he is willing to live his faith, Jimmy Carter.

QUOTE:"This post, however, reads like a junior high debate class. Posts like this will not help to further the atheist cause."

Speak for yourself. If I hate anything I hate the attitude that even some atheists have that their believing counterparts all have glass jaws.

Juvenile is the attitude that a claim(ON ANY SUBJECT) by proxy of being uttered deserves automatic respect.

The right to claim something is not the issue here. The ability to demonstrate the credibility of what one claims ON ANY SUBJECT, is the issue.

"Cant we all just get along" Who said we shouldn't?

But in getting along with our believing counterparts, that should not constitute sugar coating our position. I am capable of getting along with believers without assuming they will always fall to pieces when they hear things they might not like.

Take your political correctness elsewhere. I have run into plenty of believers who don't take it personally when you thrash their claims.

I'm all for healthy, intellectual debate around this topic. This post, however, reads like a junior high debate class. Posts like this will not help to further the atheist cause. Let Richard Dawkins and the other grownups do the talking for you next time.

While I am not disagreeing with you, you lost the religious crowd when you said that God doesn't exist. I don't think we, as a nation, are going to get very far if we can not work together. . . .

This post appears to be talking down to Christians and just saying, "You are wrong." And maybe stupid?

Posted by: squirrl
___________________________________________

You are damn right it is talking down to the theists. The theists need to be talked down, in this aspect. They are delusional so thye need to be talked down to. What do you think you will be doing with someone who goes around claiming Elvis lives on? Won't you talk down to him? Would you hire him as a CTO of your company?

Okay, so I agree with the suggestion that she be asked about god's will when she is defeated. Will that be enough to convince her to shut up and go home?

QUOTE:"This post appears to be talking down to Christians and just saying, "You are wrong." And maybe stupid?"

Yes, we are saying you are wrong, but not out of hate.

Here is how you are falsely reacting.

You, "The Chargers won the Super Bowl last year"

Skeptic, "No, they did not, the Saints did"

You, "YOU HATE ME!"

I think most humans are capable of thinking. But I also think most humans would rather protect their ego than consider that they might be wrong.

I do not think most humans are stupid. I simply think that when it comes to their personal religious beliefs, they fear being wrong. So rather face the mirror and have fearless and brave self introspection to be sure, they merely go with the flow because it feels good.

Any claim ON ANY ISSUE, not just religion, if the person holding it fears it being thrashed around, it is a good sign of insecurity.

Things that are universal to all humans are things that can be tested and replicated and falsified outside our personal labels.

It is why no sane person thinks their car runs on pixy dust, and why cars can be built anywhere in the world by any culture. Same with computers and cell phones and medicine.

How long would you work at your job, if you walked up to your boss on payday, and they said, "Just have faith you'll get paid"?

It is one thing to say, "People have the right to believe what they want" I AGREE,

But equally important, if not more important is the ability to kick the tires and allow others outside yourself to kick the tires. Otherwise what quality control do humans have when it comes to competing claims?

The right to claim something is not the same thing as having the ability to demonstrate universally to others independent of you, that what you claim is credible.

Quote:"we, as a nation, are going to get very far if we can not work together"

What does this have to do with a god existing? I agree that our country and political parties is divided. And if atheists are the minority, which which we are, then the division is amongst the Christian majority on the left and right.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god" Thomas Jefferson. who was a deist, not an atheist.

Our horrible economy and lack of jobs has nothing to do with the lack of evidence for the existence of a god, any god, past or presently claimed in human history.

I agree that our nations citizens should work together to improve the economic gap and education gap, ALL OF US.

If you want me to sit at the back of the bus because you are afraid of an atheist using the same free market of ideas to compete with you, I refuse. \

Whatever debate we have about the existence of ANY god claim, should be a separate issue than the economy. Maybe you should get OUR politicians on the left and right off invoking god, then maybe we could solve problems.

But to expect me to keep quiet when I darn well know the moon is not made of cheese, is absurd. Thoughts require a material process to manifest into action, thus the concept of a magical super brain, with no brain, no neurons, no cerebellum, is absurd.

It wasn't true that the sun was a thinking being when the Egyptians falsely believed that for 3,000 years. What makes you, or any Hindu, or Jew or Muslim today, think they are not making the same mistake?

My objections to your god claims are pragmatic, for the same reason you rightfully would reject claims of Thor making lighting.

If you want to see this nations problems end and our politicians work together, then maybe they shouldn't, EITHER SIDE, tell the public what they think god wants, and leave that up to the individual.

I think Mr. Mehta's post is spot-on here. As Richard Dawkins often points out, religion seems to enjoy a place of automatic privilege in our society. When one questions why it should be given the respect it receives instead of being subjected to tough questions, believers seem more interested in deflecting the question than providing an honest answer.

That's too bad, because thought is exactly what believers need. Many people don't even bother to examine their beliefs, the origins of those beliefs, and their implications for the world.

While I am not disagreeing with you, you lost the religious crowd when you said that God doesn't exist. I don't think we, as a nation, are going to get very far if we can not work together. Plus those on the right are SCARY and if we can't make them start thinking logically, who knows where this country will end up?

This post appears to be talking down to Christians and just saying, "You are wrong." And maybe stupid?

John Fugelsang recently commented on the Joy Behar Show that Tea Party Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell was "a one woman atheist factory." This week, the Washington Post's "On Faith" section discusses O'Donnell's claim that her campaign is guided by God

It really is easy to poke fun at Christine O'Donnell. Just like Sarah Palin was twice and religious and half as smart as former President George W. Bush, Christine O'Donnell is twice as religious and half as smart as Sarah Palin.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-philadelphia/on-faith-electing-a-godless-plan

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.