User: Shadowwatcher

adk>>But why can't an atheist be open to the idea that they may be proven wrong?

Shadowwatcher>>>Because then they'd be agnostics. The difference being in certainty.

adk>>You've listed your perceived set of definitions:

Shadowwatcher>>>No I've listed definitions. Definitions aren't subject to perception.

adk>>Someone might say "I don't think God exists--I could be wrong, but I doubt it. There's no evidence God exists, and even though I'm not infallible, I'll take the position of disbelief." How is that not an atheist position?

Shadowwatcher>>>Certainty. To give you an example, someone might also say "I think God exists--I could be wrong, but I doubt it. There's evidence God exists, and even though I'm not infallible, I'll take the position of belief." And they do say that...often... they're called people of faith. They are certain a god exists regardless of the lack of evidence. These are the theists. What you have described is not an atheist. It is an agnostic.

adk>>All atheism requires is the absence of belief in a deity.

Shadowwatcher>>>No, atheisim requires the certainty that there is no such thing as a deity.

adk>>Remember, this individual is NOT giving equal weight to the different possibilities like an agnostic does. The burden of proof is on the theists, so therefore this person takes the atheist position, rather than the agnostic position, which is that both possibilities are more or less equally likely until some sort of proof comes along.

Shadowwatcher>>>Says who? The agnostic doesn't grant weight period. They dont' know; so they're open to the posibility, but they arent' going to bother practicing in tradition as fi one exists or doesn't... but the presents are nice. The burden of proof is and was on the theists anyways. They are the one's who made the claim that a living personal god exists, and just as with a court case, seeking to find the truth, the burden of proof rests with the one who made the claim/accusation. It isn't for the accused or skeptic to prove it doesn't exist, because that would be futile. It's like someone saying a unicorn exists and then forcing the skeptic to disprove an imagined claim. Proving a negative so to speak. That's why scientologists are recognized as a religion in the U.S. because to not allow them would be to discriminate when the principles of what makes up a religion are the same... namely blind faith.

adk>>I'm not nitpicking so I can annoy you.

Shadowwatcher>>>I'm not annoyed and I didnt' suppose that was your intent.

adk>>I'm pointing this out because while YOU may not like the position some atheists take concerning the possibility they may be proven wrong, or the labels some may use, this doesn't mean such labels don't exist.

Shadowwatcher>>>Actually this has nothing to do with me; just facts. The fact is, some Atheists don't take a position that they may be wrong. I'm telling you, flat out, that no atheist takes the position, seriously, that they may be proven wrong. And yes, it does mean those labels don't exist. If they have a doubt that they may be proven wrong, then they are agnostic, even if they choose to misclassify themselves as atheists. And the same is true of people claiming to be christians open to the idea that they may be wrong. That would be disingenuous. The difference again, is uncertainty.

adk>>Atheists simply have a disbelief in the existence of god--some may strongly assert such a disbelief, others may reach that conclusion based on the positive assertion line of reasoning, weighing the evidence in favor of no god until otherwise proven. The latter are still atheists, not agnostics, simply because they don't give equal weight--that's the main issue. They take the side of disbelief, not "let's wait and see until all the evidence comes forth, then we'll make our decision."

Shadowwatcher>>>It isn't a disbelief, it's an assertion there is no reason to either believe or disbelieve that which does not exist. Those that weigh anything or are open to anything are agnostic. For people of faith it's belief. Unquestioning, unfaltering, unwavering, unfettered, indisputable, belief, and lack of evidence be damned. The difference between the two is certainty. One believes, the other has no reason to beleive or disbeleive that which does not exist, and the agnostic is uncertain.

Again...

Theist: God exists

Agnostic:God might exist or might not; I'll accept he exists when I see proof

Atheist: God doesn't exist.

See, that, to me, is just splitting hairs.

Theist: God exists

Agnostic:God might exist or might not; I'll accept he exists when I see proof

Atheist: God doesn't exist.

That's it. Atheists will never be open to the idea that a living, personal god exists. If they are open then they're not atheist, but agnostic. I dont' apply those terms to attmept to say I know someone better than they know themselves, I use the terms appropriate for the belief. As I've demonstrated. I dont' apply my own suppositions to the terms and regard them as weak or strong. they are what they are. That's liek calling someone a weak Mexican or Lumberjack or patriot or what have you.

And I would agree on much the same fronts for the same reasons, add that I would have supported Either Clinton or Biden, but Obama's arguements were just better, and along with the whole gay marriage thing, I also disagree with his stance on late term abortions. My daughter is due in December and I'd flip the $%!@ out if my fiance decided... "meh, on second thought...". I grudgingly accept his stance though because I can see where he's coming from, and he seems reasonable enough to alter course when presented with counter arguements. As far as gay marriage. What? The right wingers are engaging in word ownership now/ Puh-lease. the idea of calling them civil unions instead of marraiges is just assinine, and it's asisnine whether it's my candidate who says it or yours.

Holy...???!!! Someone actually ASKED a question on Misterpoll that was pertinant to the issue?! I'm beside myself! I don't know what to... oh, wait, no I do... :D.

Well, aside from the items you listed earlier, a VP needs to be informed enough to become president first off. That person needs to have the right arguements for his/her positions. For instance, the answer that many republicans have this year of not answering hypotheticals is the wrong answer. I dont' fault Palin for that since, as I stated, all the republicans this year haven't been doing that [it's all the rave dontcha know?], but she doesn't get a pass for being less experienced. The reason that's important is because hypotheticals cause A person to think about their own reasoning and logic and apply it towards the possibility of any given situation. Some dems have sadly done this as well, and I believe Barack Obama has done this once or twice. I was not impressed. This actually goes back to your childhood. You did something wrong and your mom called you on it. You made the arguement that your friends were doing it and she came back with a hypothetical... "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it?"

As an example, again, if a person, let's say a mayor, was confronted with a tragedy like a drive by in his/her town, and he/she advised the cheif of polic in town to catch the ring leader of the gang responsible for masterminding the act, should that mayor then alter data to get his/her way? Should he/she use it as an excuse to take care of old business? What if that mayor then said, you know what, forget about this guy... I want this guy cause he's been a thorn in our side [read our as my]? Would that be a proper use of taxpayer funds and or officer time and risk? Would it also be proper, or legal, or ethical, or logical, or reasonable then to send those officers into a rival gangs neighborhood and stir up a hornets nest to show that the mayor won't be intimidated? Would it be proper to have one of those officers rape the rival gangs members under the excuse that they are spreading the seeds of the law, or to claim that with an officers blood running through the neighborhood they're just increasing the value of the neighborhood?

Hypotheticals go to the very heart of the candidates character and reasoning, and help keep those things in perspective bassed on the answers for the voters and for the candidate. To avoid such hypothiticals, or to claim they aren't relevant or important, is a sign of avoiding the reasoning of taking any given action or dealing with any given action, and it's avoiding the notion of accountability and understanding that these candidates answer to the voters. Avoiding these hypotheticals as well, gives the impression that the candidate has something to hide, whether it's out of shame or uncertainty, and a VP as well as the president, needs to be able to answer these hypotheticals... no scratch that... a VP and a president needs to have the judgement to avoid being put into a position where a hypotheticla can be reasonabley applied.

A VP and a president, both need to have the peoples interests at heart and not be disingenuous. McCain's surge for instance, is a disingenuous claim of success, since it wasn't his leadership that brought on that success, rather it is just him taking credit for what the soldiers have done. It goes to his judgement when he can't admit that needing the surge in the first place is what's at issue. The VP candidate or Sarah Palin, should be there to advise McCain that his reasoning is flawed, and she must first be able to recognize that his reasoning is flawed, and more importantly, WHY. Instead, she is just being a good little republican and swallowing the party line. When the president is wrong, the VP needs to be the voice of reason. the VP should be one of the presidents closest advisors. An advisor should have a good and working knowledge of foreign affairs and world history, as well as a proper knowledge of American History; the good and the bad and be able to answer to both. The VP should be able to play an advisory role, without fear of being scolded or babysat, as Palin was during one of her interviews with Katie Couric. the VP candidate needs to be able to answer honest general questions when asked, like what magazines she reads, and not be afraid of her own answers; after all, one day the VP may ahve to answer such questions to the leaders of the world. IF the VP is uncomfortable, then it's lilely the world leaders will pick up on that, and the VP will also have to recognize that she isn't just presenting herself to the world leader, but Americans as well.

If a VP candidate is asked a question regarding an issue of importance at the time, like the economy, she needs to be well informed about that issue. She needs to have straight answers that pertain to the issue, rather than skirting that issue to talk about her signature strength. She needs to not speak in platitudes and generalizations. She needs to have a working knowledge of the issue in order to make, at least, a coherent and relevant statement. No non-sequitors which give the impression she/he doens't know what the hell they're tlaking about. the VP candidate should be able to get across that he/she can lead at a moments notice shoudl the president fall ill, and be able to get others to follow her. He/she needs to be humble enough to be able to ask others a question. She/he needs to not make excuses. ...

the list goes on actually. but in anutshell....

A working knowledge of world affairs

A working knowledge of world and American History

The ability to apply logic across the board on any given issue

The ability to lead and persuade others

The character to admit when they're wrong

The ability to apologize when they've made a mistake

The ability to disagree with the president when it's good sense to do so and advise him/her accordingly

The ability to do so without coaching

The ability to give honest and informed answers

The ability to go through the tedious question answer sessions that the news media will ask from time to time, so the peopel can be better informed

The ability to empathize with others, which is NOT the same as relating to them

A strong sense of true justice and what that is rahter than feeding the desire for poetic justice

High moral character

A working knowledge of ethics

The ability to make a sincere statement and stick to it

A working knowledge of current events and at elast up to date on the issues of the time

But above all, as with the president, the VP needs to be able to present valid arguements for his or her actions/claims during any given crisis or when presented with a hypothetical crisis that would attempt to get at the heart of his/her reasoning and logic. The ability to recognize that the American peopel arent' stupid. The understanding that when a common arguement fallacy is made the peopel pick up on it and... to quote a comedian impersonating the queen of England..."Weeeee are nooot..amused."

Again, as far as the "qualifications" you cite, those would be requirements/prerequisites/eligibility markers, but not qualifications.

Malph>>If Ford, Carter, Bush sr.(who was also a VP), and W are qualified to be President, then ANYONE can be Vice President.

Shadowwatcher>>>Ford may or may not have had qualifications to be president, but he was certainly in the right position to become president. He did meet the requirements set down in the constitution though, that's for certain. Carter, was certainly qualified to be president and met the requirements, and the same goes for Bush Sr., even if both of these men weren't at the top of others lists or engaged in contraversial policies and procedures. And allow me to correct you. GEORGE W. BUSH [Jr.] was not and is not qualified to be president. Period. the biggest reason being his arguments for doing what he has done. Sarah Palin at least is in the same position as Ford, in that she is certainly a likeable person, but the entire country would still prefered someone else. W. is in no such position, and Cheney was the only reason people voted for him.

Malph>>It doesn't matter if you don't like her, she's qualified.

Shadowwatcher>>>Who said I didn't liek her? I think she'd be great to argue with or have a few drinks and a few laughs with or cheer on a hockey game with. She's very personable. NONE of which makes her QUALIFIED! As a matter of fact, the for the bridge before she was against the bridge also takes away from THAT likeability. She agrees with G.W.B. which also takes away from that. She is supporting the guy who advised the guy who raped Iraq, and THAT is working against her. She is exploiting her folksieness, rather than just being folksie, and she's doign it sarcastically to be cute, and THAT is working against her.

So whether I want to have a beer with her or not, is not the issue. It's that she's just flat wrong on the issues, and just flat not qualified.

Like a comedian recently pointed out... George W. Bush was elected, for a second term, on the idea that people wanted to have a beer with him. For those of you in bars right now and watching this show... look around... see any presidents there?