Forums Index >> General >> Is Clinton an atheist?
Page : <1> :
Heh. Atheism is an ideology with a predetermined result too. I don't care how much the atheists scream that it isn't so, but it's a belief about the Creator. They just happen to believe that there is no Creator, and that there is no afterlife. Just as all the religions are beliefs about the Creator (or Creators). Neither side can prove their case without dying, and we have yet to perfect communications with those from beyond the grave. XD
I think I'll disappear again before the flame war catches up to me. ;)
@ TMO
This atheist won't say there isn't a creator. I simply have no reason to believe there is one.
At the moment in clinton's life, it sounds like, with regard to actual problems on the ground, god just gets in the way. More when im awake...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/23/clinton-gives-olbermann-some-hypothetical-advice-for-bush/
Last edited: Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 10:35:14 AM
Please don't wake.
This atheist won't say there isn't a creator. I simply have no reason to believe there is one.
I don't think that's atheism. That's agnostic. AFAIK, the definition of an atheist is one that denies God (any god) exists at all. Agnostics have or offer no opinion. I'm an agnostic. There may be a God, there may not be. I don't know, and I don't think anybody else does either. I cheerfully admit my ignorance on the subject.
44: Nailed what?
Clinton did very little for this country.
The best thing he did was getting thousands of leeches off of the welfare program.
The economy did great while he was in office only because of George H. Bush's tax cuts and it went south shortly after W took over and now it's on the upswing.
Hmmm...........
Page : <1> :
: :
OLBERMANN: This is not what we’re supposed to be about and when we talk about rewriting the Geneva Conventions, or when we talk about demonizing dissent, or even putting just a bad face on dissent in this country, are we not getting closer to what the terrorists want us to change any way?
CLINTON: Well, I think—let me at least put it in positive terms. I think that the terrorists have an ideology, right? With an ideology, you know the answer anyway, right? You have a dictated result, therefore, evidence, argument, old-fashioned standards of fact, all irrelevant. You know where you want to go, and if somebody disagrees with you, they are less human than you are, and they deserve to be a terrorist target.
Now, the way we play the game, at our best moments, is that we don’t have an ideology with a predetermined outcome. We have philosophies. Dominantly, we have a conservative philosophy and a progressive philosophy, and it sort of tells kind of where we’re likely to be, but we’re all interested in evidence and argument and learning.
And the great test of America has always been, does it work? Are people better off if we do it or not? And we just keep growing and learning in that climate, always with one dominant conservative stream, one dominant progressive. And the debate and the tension and the learning has been great for us.
So what we don’t want to do is, no matter how scared we get—and it’s OK to be frightened by the prospect of horrible things happening—we don’t want to respond to this terror threat in a way that fundamentally alters the character of our country or compromises the future of our children, because that’s what makes it great being American.
And the evidence is that a democratic society that is constantly, relentlessly learning and searching is the best antidote to the terrorist model. These guys are real good at tearing down. They’re not particularly good at building up, and there’s no reason we should help them by making the case for them by something we do.
Nailed it. How about you? Do you have an ideology with a predetermined outcome?
Last edited: Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 6:14:04 AM