• 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!

Would you vote for an Atheist?

Would you vote for or consider voting for an Atheist for any public office?

  • Yes

    Votes: 62 89.9%

  • No

    Votes: 7 10.1%
  • Total voters
    69
The Baron said:
No. Atheist are not fit to hold office. Our rights are from God. And since our rights come from God man cannot take them away. But when people stop believing that our rights come from God they start believing that our rights are "granted" by the state. And if the state can "grant" rights it can take those rights away. Atheist will have no philosophical aversion to stripping us our our individual, God-given rights.
Click to expand...

What rights did god give...and to whom?

So if atheists have no aversion to stripping god given rights....how would an atheist do that?
 
Removable Mind said:
What rights did god give...and to whom?

So if atheists have no aversion to stripping god given rights....how would an atheist do that?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting premise. If natural rights are god given, then an atheist couldn't override that. But more to the point, currently there are lots of theist politicians (pretty much the lot of the main Republocrat party) who do not accept natural right and define everything instead by government power. So what are these people who refuse to vote for atheists really getting by not voting for atheists. It seems whether they are outraged by lack of moral compass or lack of belief in natural rights that our current politicians already violate all of that.

The only real reason why people wouldn't vote for atheists is rooted in prejudiced and bias because many of these people are supporting the same politicians doing things they claim they cannot vote for an atheist because. So it's obviously not so much the act in and of itself as it is being an atheist.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, so you would have no problem voting for an atheist who accepted natural rights. Yes?
Click to expand...

In view of my post, I am confused at how you can be an athiest and believe in natural rights. What distinction are you making?
 
Removable Mind said:
What rights did god give...and to whom?

So if atheists have no aversion to stripping god given rights....how would an atheist do that?
Click to expand...

From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

For other rights you may refer to the Bill of Rights.
 
The Baron said:
In view of my post, I am confused at how you can be an athiest and believe in natural rights. What distinction are you making?
Click to expand...

Why couldn't an atheist believe in natural rights? As with all human morality, the understanding of natural rights is rooted in our intelligence and empathy. As Kant argues, natural rights can be understood through intelligence alone; there is no need for a god. You define a need for it, and that's fine, but it's not required. An atheist can just as easily understand and accept natural rights.

And your contention against atheists is really rooted in that, the acceptance of natural rights. As such, you could vote for an atheist so long as they understand the concept and necessity of natural rights. Yes?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
No moral compass, no vote.
Click to expand...
Better no compass than a faulty one which points in the wrong direction, I reckon.

earthworm said:
A "like" and oh so true..particularly in the land of Islam.......here....not much of a problem, IMO.
Click to expand...
So, you never heard of Rick Santorum?

The Baron said:
No. Atheist are not fit to hold office. Our rights are from God. And since our rights come from God man cannot take them away. But when people stop believing that our rights come from God they start believing that our rights are "granted" by the state. And if the state can "grant" rights it can take those rights away. Atheist will have no philosophical aversion to stripping us our our individual, God-given rights.
Click to expand...
Which 'God-given' rights have you discovered to be impossible to remove? When you show me one that is truly 'inalienable', I may convert to some kind of deism.
 
Cecil900 said:
I would like to ask as a DP poll though, would you vote for or consider voting for an Atheist in any public office, not just the Presidency.
Click to expand...

Sure, I would. It would depend on what I perceived as character traits, and stance on various issues. So far in my life, the atheists I have known were of good character, and were reason-based thinkers. As long as the candidate didn't bring his/her atheism into the legislative process, as a means of denying others the right to express their own non-atheist beliefs, I would have no problem with whatever he did, or did not believe.
 
The Baron said:
In view of my post, I am confused at how you can be an athiest and believe in natural rights. What distinction are you making?
Click to expand...
I would back up Ikari's response. There's no need to declare natural rights valid only because you have a person in a smock telling you there's a deity (that you've never seen/heard/experienced) backing that up. To me that almost seems shallow. Atheists are able to emphasize the natural value and agency of human beings, because they are intellegent and empathetic human beings themselves.
 
I'd be much more worried about theists having no moral compass than atheists. Someone who needs an external source to know right from wrong would be the person lacking a moral compass, not someone who can tell just fine on their own. As Ikari said, our moral compasses are part of our evolution. Our definitions of right and wrong stem from our experience as species, where generally being kind to each other made us thrive. When we try to emulate the specific mores of a long dead culture, it harms us far more than it helps us.

We have far more to fear from candidates who emphasize their religion and would make decisions based on it while governing than we do from one that has no religion at all.
 
Ikari said:
Why couldn't an atheist believe in natural rights? As with all human morality, the understanding of natural rights is rooted in our intelligence and empathy. As Kant argues, natural rights can be understood through intelligence alone; there is no need for a god. You define a need for it, and that's fine, but it's not required. An atheist can just as easily understand and accept natural rights.

And your contention against atheists is really rooted in that, the acceptance of natural rights. As such, you could vote for an atheist so long as they understand the concept and necessity of natural rights. Yes?
Click to expand...

No. Natural rights are rooted in God. Natural law = God's law.

You can not believe in Natural rights without first believing in God.
 
The Baron said:
No. Natural rights are rooted in God. Natural law = God's law.

You can not believe in Natural rights without first believing in God.
Click to expand...

pure bs
 
The Baron said:
No. Natural rights are rooted in God. Natural law = God's law.

You can not believe in Natural rights without first believing in God.
Click to expand...
If you see Natural Rights as those being found in Nature, which is nonsense, then you are incorrect. Who invented or created Nature becomes the issue then. God, a big dog with fleas, or the Universe itself? You don't have to believe in God to rights as Natural.
 
The Baron said:
No. Natural rights are rooted in God. Natural law = God's law.

You can not believe in Natural rights without first believing in God.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect, you only want to make that point but there's no argument to support it.

So what you are saying is that your major contention is the acceptance of natural rights, but even if an atheist were to accept natural rights you still couldn't vote for them because you don't think it's possible for a human to not believe in god while simultaneously accepting that at base all humans are human. It's not the most self-consistent of all arguments.
 
The Baron said:
The Declaration of Independence
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impelthem to the separation.”

The term “the law of nature” was a very specific term coined by Sir EdwardCoke…

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634)
“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature ofman infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law,called the law of nature.”

This same term was later used by William Blackstone who wrote a law textbook. If you were a lawyer, as was Thomas Jefferson, you studied Blackstone.

William Blackstone
“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature…This law of nature…dictated by God Himself is, ofcourse, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe,in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity incontrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority…from this original.”

“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation,depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”
- Commentaries on the Law (A lawtextbook / 2,500 copies sold in America prior to the Revolutionary War)

"Natural law" is God's law.
Click to expand...

If the founders really thought the only person capable of protecting natural rights granted by god, why does Article six of the consitution specifically prohibit religious tests for public office?
 
brothern said:
I would back up Ikari's response. There's no need to declare natural rights valid only because you have a person in a smock telling you there's a deity (that you've never seen/heard/experienced) backing that up. To me that almost seems shallow. Atheists are able to emphasize the natural value and agency of human beings, because they are intellegent and empathetic human beings themselves.
Click to expand...

Yet history tells us different. When God is driven from a culture (Communism, Socialism, Nazism) humans try to dominate / subjugate one another and I have no idea what is intelligent or empathetic about that.
 
The Baron said:
Yet history tells us different. When God is driven from a culture (Communism, Socialism, Nazism) humans try to dominate / subjugate one another and I have no idea what is intelligent or empathetic about that.
Click to expand...

All gods have been derived from culture and society. They can be used for good or evil, just like pretty much any other human invention through the course of history.
 
Cecil900 said:
If the founders really thought the only person capable of protecting natural rights granted by god, why does Article six of the consitution specifically prohibit religious tests for public office?
Click to expand...

Because our Founders were creating a Republic--not a theocracy.

However, it is helpful to remember the words of John Adams who actually signed the Constitution:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
 
Cecil900 said:
When I thought about doing this poll, I thought that most Americans still wouldn't. But the poll I looked up to post this has apparently changed that information:
Majority Of Americans Would Vote For An Atheist For President (POLL)

I would like to ask as a DP poll though, would you vote for or consider voting for an Atheist in any public office, not just the Presidency.

As a discussion point, I believe there are six states that do not allow Atheists to hold public office, even though that is against the US constitution.

Also as an Atheist, my vote is naturally yes.
Click to expand...

I'd vote for a scientologist if I had reason to believe he was honest, competent and had his heart in the right place.
 
The Baron said:
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

For other rights you may refer to the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


Let's go back to your original post:

The Baron said:
No. Atheist are not fit to hold office. Our rights are from God. And since our rights come from God man cannot take them away. But when people stop believing that our rights come from God they start believing that our rights are "granted" by the state. And if the state can "grant" rights it can take those rights away. Atheist will have no philosophical aversion to stripping us our our individual, God-given rights.
Click to expand...

What's god's role in all of this as you claimed in your previous post? When did god publish these so called Natural Rights and where can they be found?

How would an atheist strip away individual's god given rights? And who is US? Why didn't god do the same for Iran or Cuba or Syria?


The Declaration of Independence doesn't grant rights. And it certainly doesn't create a government authority to impose and enforce "Natural Rights"....

In case you haven't noticed, we are a nation that is ruled by laws created by bodies of governments elected by the people?

How can any person determine who or what my creator is...or isn't for that matter?

The Bill of Rights...? Certainly an advantage to us, but I won't go as far to say that they are inalienable.
 
The Baron said:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I'm sure those who believed in Zeus felt the same thing during their time as well.
 
If they were Conservative and adequately represented my values? Sure, I can't see any particular reason why I shouldn't vote for an atheist.

Unfortunately, however; most of the high profile atheists with which I am familiar tend to Liberal and rather vitriolically opposed to my values to say the very least.
 
Gathomas88 said:
If they were Conservative and adequately represented my values? Sure, I can't see any particular reason why I shouldn't vote for an atheist.

Unfortunately, however; most of the high profile atheists with which I am familiar tend to Liberal and rather vitriolically opposed to my values to say the very least.
Click to expand...

I invariably feel the same way about "high profile" Christians. Most of the low profile Christians I've personally known have been very good people.
 
To the four people who said no as of now, you are the reason why the United States is in a bad position. The mindset that the only people that should be able to run a country are ones that are religiously affiliated is absolutely ridiculous. Atheists would make a much less bias choice for a politician, not passing laws based on one religion over another. Closed minded people are the reason why we are stuck in neutral.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Unfortunately, however; most of the high profile atheists with which I am familiar tend to Liberal and rather vitriolically opposed to my values to say the very least.
Click to expand...

Cardinal said:
I invariably feel the same way about "high profile" Christians. Most of the low profile Christians I've personally known have been very good people.
Click to expand...

That's because all groups have a natural distribution of reasonable folk and crazy folk, and the crazy folk in all groups tend to be the loudest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom