• 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 an Atheist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 70 90.9%
  • No

    Votes: 7 9.1%

  • Total voters
    77
I would vote for anyone who's religious or non-religious beliefs did not interfere with the way the preform in office.
 
Right.. if you say so. Indifference to religious fanatics is a price you gotta pay to get a politician elected I understand.

Really? DO you consider Obama a zealot? Clinton? Carter? The majority of democrat AND republican congressmen? And do you see them daily crusading? Do you REALIZE how foolish it sounds when you come in here and CREATE arguments against religious 'zealots' only to then ridicule religious zealots???

And really...you dont have to look to the national political stage to see idiotic ideological zealots that like to rudely force their ideas on others. Heck...threads magically pop up here on a regular basis.
 
Really? DO you consider Obama a zealot? Clinton? Carter? The majority of democrat AND republican congressmen? And do you see them daily crusading? Do you REALIZE how foolish it sounds when you come in here and CREATE arguments against religious 'zealots' only to then ridicule religious zealots???

And really...you dont have to look to the national political stage to see idiotic ideological zealots that like to rudely force their ideas on others. Heck...threads magically pop up here on a regular basis.

Look libertarians were a fringe group before they hooked up with the religious right.. then they got a foothold in the early 90s. Now that the religious right doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of political philosophy they rely on libertarians. However the last couple of years have basically crushed libertarian philosophy with the market screwing them and now the BP oil spill. Private enterprise needs regulation end of story. Or you can keep going to the public to bail them out. But likely you don't understand all that.
 
I would vote for anyone who's religious or non-religious beliefs did not interfere with the way the preform in office.

So you would vote for a candidate whose views were the opposite of yours? It seems to me the only reason any votes for a particular candidate is because of his views/beliefs.
 
Look libertarians were a fringe group before they hooked up with the religious right.. then they got a foothold in the early 90s. Now that the religious right doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of political philosophy they rely on libertarians. However the last couple of years have basically crushed libertarian philosophy with the market screwing them and now the BP oil spill. Private enterprise needs regulation end of story. Or you can keep going to the public to bail them out. But likely you don't understand all that.

Wow...I...just...wow...did you grab a snack and let your 3 year old nephew get hold of your keyboard??? What is that saying...5000 monkeys would eventually type a novel? or in your case at least one would post...THAT...what the hell was that? Atheists rule because religious zealots have suddenly overwhelmed the Libertarian party and given it sudden credibility...down with the pope...and...freeeeeedom!!!! :spin::rofl:rofl
 
Wow...I...just...wow...did you grab a snack and let your 3 year old nephew get hold of your keyboard??? What is that saying...5000 monkeys would eventually type a novel? or in your case at least one would post...THAT...what the hell was that? Atheists rule because religious zealots have suddenly overwhelmed the Libertarian party and given it sudden credibility...down with the pope...and...freeeeeedom!!!! :spin::rofl:rofl

lol.. your good at what here? Libertarians can be atheist .. they just really have a lot of contempt for religious wackos. However libertarianism is basically flawed logic and their assumptions about free enterprise have been proven wrong .. not in small ways. You can keep on with your dogmatic belief in microscopic government I guess. I don't hear a lot of libertarians screaming about how much the government spends on military.. ah well live and let live. I'm probably more libertarian then you are.
 
So you would vote for a candidate whose views were the opposite of yours? It seems to me the only reason any votes for a particular candidate is because of his views/beliefs.

Nope I would not. I knew I forgot something in my original post. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
 
lol.. your good at what here? Libertarians can be atheist .. they just really have a lot of contempt for religious wackos. However libertarianism is basically flawed logic and their assumptions about free enterprise have been proven wrong .. not in small ways. You can keep on with your dogmatic belief in microscopic government I guess. I don't hear a lot of libertarians screaming about how much the government spends on military.. ah well live and let live. I'm probably more libertarian then you are.

Actually you DO hear a LOT of libertarians screaming about RESPONSIBLE government and reduced spending INCLUDING cuts in the military. THIS libertarian...a 20 year vet of several wars...has on numerous occasions pointed out that there was LOTS of room to cut there...and EVERYWHERE...in the fed.

But obviously you dont LIKE the fact that I shined the light on your atheistic anti-religiuous zealotry and decided to take this thread a comPLETEly different direction...and frankly...I dont blame you. So...I'll encourage you...HAVE the last word on this...its become beyond boring.
 
Probably not. In my experience, "atheism" is just a code word for "anti-religious zealotry".
 
Actually you DO hear a LOT of libertarians screaming about RESPONSIBLE government and reduced spending INCLUDING cuts in the military. THIS libertarian...a 20 year vet of several wars...has on numerous occasions pointed out that there was LOTS of room to cut there...and EVERYWHERE...in the fed.

But obviously you dont LIKE the fact that I shined the light on your atheistic anti-religiuous zealotry and decided to take this thread a comPLETEly different direction...and frankly...I dont blame you. So...I'll encourage you...HAVE the last word on this...its become beyond boring.

Bah .. that is all talk nothing comes of it because all you guys are is dupes for the wealthy who don't want to be taxed for the most part. The military spending is the sacrifice you gotta pay to keep the religious wackos on board to elect republican politicians.

I don't particularly care you "shed light" on my anti religious sentiment. I'm not pretending to be otherwise. I prefer thinking people over volume votes any day. I’d be bored with a debate I didn’t have a leg to stand on ether.
 
Yes, assuming it was a candidate I liked anyway. It would be a plus.

But I wouldn't vote for someone just because they were an atheist. George Will is an atheist and I wouldn't vote for him.
 
Probably not. In my experience, "atheism" is just a code word for "anti-religious zealotry".

I think there are many many more atheists than you know about. They're just hiding in the closet. Judging atheism by the loud ones is like saying all gays are like the wild ones that march in the gay pride parade dressing up like fairies. Yes, they are there, but that's a small minority.
 
Yes.. It would be resfreshing to vote for someone who does not allow dogma to clould their judgement on most things:)
 
For all I know, I have voted for Atheists already, since I don't have any idea what any of the candidates (beyond GW) views on religion are. I don't know and I certainly don't care. I am sure that it would be greatly talked about if the candidate was a Satan Worshipper, or something, and I would care about that, but otherwise, don't know and don't care.

Why would you care if someone is a "Satan Worshipper" but would not care about other types of religion? Are you implying it is ok to vote for someone who does worship a godhead but if they worship Satan you would not vote for them based on that fact?
 
I think there are many many more atheists than you know about. They're just hiding in the closet. Judging atheism by the loud ones is like saying all gays are like the wild ones that march in the gay pride parade dressing up like fairies. Yes, they are there, but that's a small minority.

A good point, but we're talking about a public figure that's an atheist. That type of atheist is, in my mind, more likely to be the militant type that I dislike. As an agnostic, I dislike any kind of religious or non-religious extremism.
 
You know that zealous, non religious dick thing? Boom...there it is...

yeah...thats NO less obnoxious then overly religious zealots...

I think you're assuming I tried to do something I didn't try to do, or perhaps I just don't understand your point.
 
I think you're assuming I tried to do something I didn't try to do, or perhaps I just don't understand your point.

It wasnt referencing you...it was referencing the other party...
 
It wasnt referencing you...it was referencing the other party...

Right, I apologised for being presumptuous with regards to his intent and you jumped on it before he could see my reply in hopes of creating some pathetic correlation to gang up on my sentiment. Then after my apology was appreciated you looked like the dick you were being. So now you are deferring the argument away from our conversation or at least trying to. Why bother?
 
:spin::rofl

Right, I apologised for being presumptuous with regards to his intent and you jumped on it before he could see my reply in hopes of creating some pathetic correlation to gang up on my sentiment. Then after my apology was appreciated you looked like the dick you were being. So now you are deferring the argument away from our conversation or at least trying to. Why bother?

Thats some hardcore revisionist history! :lamo but hey...if it helps you sleep...
 
all I know is somehow, I'm not the one argueing. This is new for me.....I'm not sure I like it.
 
You could be a teabagging John, ammoral atheist for all I care and I'll vote for you if you run a tight fiscal ship that gets government out of my private life.
 
I would have no problem voting for an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Buddhist. I don't care about the religious views of politicians as long as they don't mess them up with their politics.
 
Whether religious or atheist, I always check the sleeves to make sure that they are bare.
 
Well that would be the religious rights affinity for moral absolutism.

This is just my opinion of course, but I would think that moral absolutism is pretty low on most conservatives lists.

Fiscal conservatism, low tax policy, frugality, pro-life, strong defense, states rights, etc etc. Most of the things that I see conservatives list off when you ask them what it means to be conservative have nothing to do with religion, besides maybe pro-life, which one can reach that conclusion without any religion.

I think my main argument here is that if you alter what being conservative means into what the religious right has, essentially then requiring the person be religious, then yes, atheism would be very opposed to that view in most or all cases. But the religious right certainly doesn't own conservatism.
 
Back
Top Bottom