• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vote for an atheist president (for religious people)

Would you vote for an atheist president with your views?

  • Yes, I would, his beliefs shouldn't matter

    Votes: 52 89.7%

  • No, he needs to believe in God, even if he agrees with me

    Votes: 6 10.3%
  • Total voters
    58
OhIsee.Then said:
I re-read your post where you described your observations. I had responded that my observations have been different. I think they are different because a higher proportion of atheists hide they views compared to most Christians, therefore your not counting them at all. I still think that was related to your post, so please try again to have me understand.
Click to expand...
This explanation of my post is related, but when you said the stuff about atheists having to hide, I read it as you asserting that atheists are discriminated against by intolerant religious people. I didn't think that interpretation of your comment was related to my post since I had said earlier that there are intolerant religious people and it's understandable for atheists to have problems with the religious.

In any case, I might not have a good sense of proportion and of course, the loudest, most intolerant people are going to get the most airtime. However, I went to college with a lot of atheists, I can safely say that the majority of those who were tolerant on the surface sometimes let some pretty intolerant things slip out once in a while. Moreover, this board has been filled with a lot of intolerance as well. Even so, as I said in my first post in the thread, I would vote for an atheist although I would prefer a theist like me. I just think the idea that theists don't have valid reason to be skeptical of an atheist candidate is ludicrous.
 
Personally I prefer a president who shares in the Christian faith, however the Constitution says that no religious test is allowed. Now that applies to the qualifications applied by government, and I wonder if it is fair that I apply such a test. I'm slight conflicted about this though I tend toward choosing someone of faith.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. I don't think I've ever even used the word "extremists" in this thread. That is Strike 1 for you since you put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Not my fault that you cannot follow the coversation.

2. I never said all atheists were like that. In fact, I said,
Click to expand...
Yes ok whatever you say sparky.


That is Strike 2 for you since you didn't read and Strike 3 since you put words in my mouth again.
Click to expand...
You should have added a foul in the middle it would have been better reading.

3. I made it very clear that I was speaking solely from my experience. I purposely emphasized this by saying in each post phrases like "in my experience" and "I think". That's Strike 4 for not reading.
Click to expand...
Strike 4? Are you American?

4. You say that that I "believe any criticism of religion is considered attacking". However, in my post, I criticize religious bigotry so no dice there either. That is Strike 5 for not reading, stereotyping and just plain not making any sense.
Click to expand...
Seriously strike 5? See you needed some fouls then you could have said that you fouled me out at least. lol

5. If you are an atheist, you just proved my point with your "obviously like most theists..." comment. Strike 6 for proving the point that you claimed "lacks reality."
Click to expand...
Lol but you just said that your point was only your individual opinion.


In conclusion, you didn't actually respond to anything I wrote. You put words in my mouth, didn't actually read my post, accused me of doing things I didn't do and stereotyped theists thereby proving my point. Let's see if you now go back, read my comment and respond to what was actually said instead of contributing this Epic Fail of post that you just wrote in this thread.
Click to expand...
Now see had you stuck with the baseball theme you could have wrote a neat witty conclusion. Except of course it would have been just as delusional as the one you actually wrote. I like when you tried to accuse me of a strawman then turned around and wrote your own strawman that was classic.

Admittedly you asserted that your opinion is bigoted. Cool beans thanx for the support. Here is my point now: A secular government is the only possible way for liberty to stay intact. When theists go all ballistic and start asserting that only religious people can be moral, well that my friend is a strike against liberty. And right now we are two down on the last inning and our worst batters are up next.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Not my fault that you cannot follow the conversation.
Click to expand...
Uh...what? You accused ME of saying multiple things that I did not which means that YOU did not follow the conversation. That pretty much sums up the rest of your post and I'm not about to get into in a pissing contest over some illiterate nonsense.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Uh...what? You accused ME of saying multiple things that I did not which means that YOU did not follow the conversation. That pretty much sums up the rest of your post and I'm not about to get into in a pissing contest over some illiterate nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yea ok, anyways..

A secular government is the only possible way for liberty to stay intact. When theists go all ballistic and start asserting that only religious people can be moral, well that my friend is a strike against liberty. And right now we are two down on the last inning and our worst batters are up next.

The Republican party is trying to turn politics into who is the best religious leader wins. There are no Atheists running for President. Zero zilch as in none. Us Atheists are not wanting to turn this country into an Atheist utopia. There is no political might that is Atheist in America. So the issue is not what Atheists are doing to this country, it is what the Religious Right is doing to this country. Preaching that a section of society is immoral sounds familiar.

Here is the reality that you are missing: Christians assert that they are the moral leaders of the world. Christians single out Atheists (because of the writings in the bible) as immoral subhuman scabs on society. It is obvious even from your own opinions that Christians intend to banish Atheists from the Government and ultimately from society. Hence the need to try to convert all of us Atheists. Christians promote conflict by insisting that Atheists cannot be moral without god. Is not bigotry a sin?

Electoral Colleges make a lot of since when people start making silly decisions like asserting that certain groups are more moral than others.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yea ok, anyways..

A secular government is the only possible way for liberty to stay intact. When theists go all ballistic and start asserting that only religious people can be moral, well that my friend is a strike against liberty. And right now we are two down on the last inning and our worst batters are up next.

The Republican party is trying to turn politics into who is the best religious leader wins. There are no Atheists running for President. Zero zilch as in none. Us Atheists are not wanting to turn this country into an Atheist utopia. There is no political might that is Atheist in America. So the issue is not what Atheists are doing to this country, it is what the Religious Right is doing to this country. Preaching that a section of society is immoral sounds familiar.

Here is the reality that you are missing: Christians assert that they are the moral leaders of the world. Christians single out Atheists (because of the writings in the bible) as immoral subhuman scabs on society. y. Hence the need to try to convert all of us Atheists. Christians promote conflict by insisting that Atheists cannot be moral without god. Is not bigotry a sin?

Electoral Colleges make a lot of since when people start making silly decisions like asserting that certain groups are more moral than others.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with my original comment nor my continuation of the conversation with Removable Mind. It's almost as if you brought a bunch of baggage into the thread regarding Christianity and atheism that you're projecting all over onto my comments.

It is obvious even from your own opinions that Christians intend to banish Atheists from the Government and ultimately from societ
Click to expand...
lol wut?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
This has nothing to do with my original comment nor my continuation of the conversation with Removable Mind. It's almost as if you brought a bunch of baggage into the thread regarding Christianity and atheism that you're projecting all over onto my comments.

lol wut?
Click to expand...
As a separate entity I bring ideas into the conversation that did not come from you. That is what is great about debates, that people have individual thoughts. I did not intend to mindlessly mimic your conversation with Removable Mind.

But oh well
 
We've somehow moved away from the intent of the thread.

Question: Would a person of faith vote for a person who is not?

Blasting out stereotypical behaviors that one person perceives they've observed or assumes to be associated with another's belief system...will get us nowhere in this discourse.
 
American said:
Personally I prefer a president who shares in the Christian faith, however the Constitution says that no religious test is allowed. Now that applies to the qualifications applied by government, and I wonder if it is fair that I apply such a test. I'm slight conflicted about this though I tend toward choosing someone of faith.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, which may not count for much, you are allowed as an individual voter to apply any test you want. And what is more, the fact that you are conflicted indicates that you are considering many things. What more could a fellow American ask for. Just because you come up with a different answer than I do in many cases is secondary to me.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I agree.


I never understand this assertion. I am a theist and it's incredibly easy for me to comprehend and relate to the atheist position. I don't see why an atheist can't do the same.
Click to expand...

The various types of theist's positions are difficult for atheists to comprehend or relate to because we (atheist) live life empirically.

As I stated before. As far as I am aware, there are no abilities by human beings to think or act in supernatural ways. I can't give myself to accept without scrutiny or skepticism something created by man who says, "my writings are an inspiration of the creator of the universe." so therefore believe what I say....

Before monotheism there was polytheism. I don't see Jewish, Muslim, or Christian communities pondering the genuine possibility that there are many gods. In fact they see it as blasphemy. There's no second thoughts are comprehending...or relating to these beliefs. Well, to consider my point, think of Hinduism. Can you comprehend it...or relate to the many gods Hindus believe in?

If you walk into an empty room...you won't be looking for a chair to sit down in. And you aren't going to pick a spot in the room and by reason of faith begin to sit down as though there is a chair in the room. The chair...just doesn't exist in your mind, your conscious awareness, or you subconsciousness...so it's hard to comprehend or relate to the possibility that there is a chair somewhere in the room.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
As a separate entity I bring ideas into the conversation that did not come from you. That is what is great about debates, that people have individual thoughts. I did not intend to mindlessly mimic your conversation with Removable Mind.

But oh well
Click to expand...
I can't have a conversation with someone who refuses to accurately address anything I said. I don't have one way conversations.
 
Removable Mind said:
We've somehow moved away from the intent of the thread.

Question: Would a person of faith vote for a person who is not?

Blasting out stereotypical behaviors that one person perceives they've observed or assumes to be associated with another's belief system...will get us nowhere in this discourse.
Click to expand...
Actually, the behavior that we perceive from the other side is entirely relevant to the question since how theists perceive atheists can directly contribute to why or why not they would vote for an atheist. There have been several comments in this thread implying that theists would not vote for atheists simply out of bigotry or lack of understanding. However, it's entirely possible that they have predominantly experienced intolerant atheists in their personal lives or through the media. This is exactly what happens with evangelical Christianity as well. Many people experience predominantly negative behavior from and apply that to evangelical Christian candidates.

Consequently, to say that theists wouldn't elect an atheist simply out of bigotry is ridiculous (which was said earlier). It's equally ridiculous to imply that one's perceptions of another's behavior aren't relevant to the discussion. The only thing that is irrelevant, I think, is people's sensitive reactions to other people's perceptions of their group.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Actually, the behavior that we perceive from the other side is entirely relevant to the question since how theists perceive atheists can directly contribute to why or why not they would vote for an atheist. There have been several comments in this thread implying that theists would not vote for atheists simply out of bigotry or lack of understanding. However, it's entirely possible that they have predominantly experienced intolerant atheists in their personal lives or through the media. This is exactly what happens with evangelical Christianity as well. Many people experience predominantly negative behavior from and apply that to evangelical Christian candidates.

Consequently, to say that theists wouldn't elect an atheist simply out of bigotry is ridiculous (which was said earlier). It's equally ridiculous to imply that one's perceptions of another's behavior aren't relevant to the discussion. The only thing that is irrelevant, I think, is people's sensitive reactions to other people's perceptions of their group.
Click to expand...

I'm not a spring chicken.

All of my voting life I've voted for "theists". I don't make an scrutiny of his or her particular religion. Why? I pay way more attention to what empirical information I can gather about the politician. In other words...what they say and do are empirical ways to understand who the person is. Sometime printed information shares more about who they are....as indicated by quotes and reported events in which the politician has participated. Television and radio are other mediums to watch and listen to another person as they express (verbalize - an empirical action) his or her views, etc.

So there are a lot of criteria that's more important to me.

HOWEVER, say for instance when Pat Robertson ran for president. He frequently talked about his conversations with God. Sorry, that's a show stopper for me because I don't believe that's rational. Since that time Robertson has made outrageous claims about devastating events that have affected humanity. So, he's just not on my list of folks that I would lend my time to.
 
Removable Mind said:
The various types of theist's positions are difficult for atheists to comprehend or relate to because we (atheist) live life empirically.
Click to expand...
Sure, but imagination enables us put ourselves in other people's mindsets.

As I stated before. As far as I am aware, there are no abilities by human beings to think or act in supernatural ways. I can't give myself to accept without scrutiny or skepticism something created by man who says, "my writings are an inspiration of the creator of the universe." so therefore believe what I say....
Click to expand...
I'm talking about comprehension and relation, not acceptance without skepticism and scrutiny. Those are two very different things. I do not accept atheism nor do I accept Islam. However, I can comprehend and relate to both positions.

Before monotheism there was polytheism. I don't see Jewish, Muslim, or Christian communities pondering the genuine possibility that there are many gods. In fact they see it as blasphemy. There's no second thoughts are comprehending...or relating to these beliefs.
Click to expand...
What you're describing here, to me, is the stubbornness and small mindedness of individuals - individuals who are unwilling to imagine the world through other people's perspectives. What you do not describe is an inability to comprehend or relate to different beliefs. As I said, I am more than able to comprehend and relate to beliefs and positions on theism and religion that differ greatly from my own. There are many other people who are just as a capable. Consequently, I tend to think that inability to comprehend and relate is more of a individual problem than a group problem.

Well, to consider my point, think of Hinduism. Can you comprehend it...or relate to the many gods Hindus believe in?
Click to expand...
I don't know much about Hinduism, but I imagine if I learned, I certainly could. I'm only able to comprehend and relate to things that I have both been exposed to in a significant manner and that I have devoted ample thought too. From my vantage point, the only thing that one needs to comprehend different beliefs on theism and religion is the ability to understand and relate to human beings. Theist and atheist thoughts are human thoughts that are based in experience. If you find out what experiences and logic founds a belief, then comprehension and relation is possible.

What we may not be able to do is accept and fully connect to beliefs and positions that differ from our own. However, comprehension and relation are separate ideas that I think are entirely possible.

If you walk into an empty room...you won't be looking for a chair to sit down in. And you aren't going to pick a spot in the room and by reason of faith begin to sit down as though there is a chair in the room. The chair...just doesn't exist in your mind, your conscious awareness, or you subconsciousness...so it's hard to comprehend or relate to the possibility that there is a chair somewhere in the room.
Click to expand...
This analogy makes your argument more easy to understand. Even so, if you're in a room of 100 people who believe that there is a chair in the room, then they will have explanations for their beliefs that you should be able to comprehend and relate to based on your common humanity. Human beliefs are based in human thought and human experience. Consequently, human beings ought to be able to relate them.
 
Removable Mind said:
I'm not a spring chicken.

All of my voting life I've voted for "theists". I don't make an scrutiny of his or her particular religion. Why? I pay way more attention to what empirical information I can gather about the politician. In other words...what they say and do are empirical ways to understand who the person is. Sometime printed information shares more about who they are....as indicated by quotes and reported events in which the politician has participated. Television and radio are other mediums to watch and listen to another person as they express (verbalize - an empirical action) his or her views, etc.

So there are a lot of criteria that's more important to me.

HOWEVER, say for instance when Pat Robertson ran for president. He frequently talked about his conversations with God. Sorry, that's a show stopper for me because I don't believe that's rational. Since that time Robertson has made outrageous claims about devastating events that have affected humanity. So, he's just not on my list of folks that I would lend my time to.
Click to expand...
The bold part is what I'm talking about. Behavior is entirely relevant to this discussion, particularly if you want to understand why some theists might not want to vote for an atheist. If you see a certain group, whether it be atheists or evangelical Christians displaying a pattern of behavior, it's going to inform your decision.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The bold part is what I'm talking about. Behavior is entirely relevant to this discussion, particularly if you want to understand why some theists might not want to vote for an atheist. If you see a certain group, whether it be atheists or evangelical Christians displaying a pattern of behavior, it's going to inform your decision.
Click to expand...

TPD...I do see your point. But do you also see what I based why I based my judgment regarding Robertson?

Irrationality...is a biggie for me...no matter what their core beliefs are.

If an Atheist, running for president talked irrationally...believe me, I'd not show that person any consideration at all.

Do you believe Pat Robertson to be of sound mind enough to be President?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yea ok, anyways..

A secular government is the only possible way for liberty to stay intact. When theists go all ballistic and start asserting that only religious people can be moral, well that my friend is a strike against liberty. And right now we are two down on the last inning and our worst batters are up next.

The Republican party is trying to turn politics into who is the best religious leader wins. There are no Atheists running for President. Zero zilch as in none. Us Atheists are not wanting to turn this country into an Atheist utopia. There is no political might that is Atheist in America. So the issue is not what Atheists are doing to this country, it is what the Religious Right is doing to this country. Preaching that a section of society is immoral sounds familiar.

Here is the reality that you are missing: Christians assert that they are the moral leaders of the world. Christians single out Atheists (because of the writings in the bible) as immoral subhuman scabs on society. It is obvious even from your own opinions that Christians intend to banish Atheists from the Government and ultimately from society. Hence the need to try to convert all of us Atheists. Christians promote conflict by insisting that Atheists cannot be moral without god. Is not bigotry a sin?

Electoral Colleges make a lot of since when people start making silly decisions like asserting that certain groups are more moral than others.
Click to expand...

The left is pretty much all atheist. Vote for Obama.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The left is pretty much all atheist. Vote for Obama.
Click to expand...
What is really sad is that the Republican playing field sux so bad that it almost (in a macabre way) makes Obama an attractive alternative. At any rate I do not vote according to what personal beliefs politicians have or do not have. I just assume that they all have bad morals otherwise they would not be politicians.
 
Removable Mind said:
TPD...I do see your point. But do you also see what I based why I based my judgment regarding Robertson?

Irrationality...is a biggie for me...no matter what their core beliefs are.

If an Atheist, running for president talked irrationally...believe me, I'd not show that person any consideration at all.

Do you believe Pat Robertson to be of sound mind enough to be President?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think he is of sound mind which is EXACTLY why I'm saying that the behavior of members of particularly groups is relevant to the discussion and why I disagree with your initial comment that it isn't.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Obama is not a Christian, sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...
Obama is a Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life. He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he "was not raised in a religious household". He described his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists"), to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known". He described his father as "raised a Muslim", but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful". Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change".[297]

In an interview with the evangelical periodical Christianity Today, Obama stated: "I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life."[298]

On September 27, 2010, Obama released a statement commenting on his religious views saying "I'm a Christian by choice. My family didn't—frankly, they weren't folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn't raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead—being my brothers' and sisters' keeper, treating others as they would treat me."[299][300]

Obama was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ, a black liberation church, in 1988, and was an active member there for two decades.[301] Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[302] After a prolonged effort to find a church to attend regularly in Washington, Obama announced in June 2009 that his primary place of worship would be the Evergreen Chapel at Camp David.[303]
Click to expand...
Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd say he's a Christian, but maybe not the kind of Christian that tries to force his religion on everybody else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom