• 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
ThePlayDrive said:
Non-belief does not often have the same deterministic influence over a person's choices and decisions as belief often does. Although it's not dramatically important to me to have a theist president, I would prefer someone who believes that they might have to answer to a higher power and who possess a certain humility in light of that. Other people certainly have even more intense preferences with regards to theism and religion.

At first glance, it might not make much sense that some theists would care so much, but when you take in account the fact that theism and especially religion are often very influential in how people make decisions, it's more easy to understand.
Click to expand...

Many athiests only don't believe becaues they don't see reason for it - many have and do change their views based on things they experience in tehir lives.

Likewise: religious people can do the same and let go of their beliefs.

But in my experience: most religious people are't truly religious - it's a social appearance they're upkeeping, or merely holding onto their upbringing and so on. I've met numerous religoius people who go through all the motions but don't truly believe what they claim to represent. . . I first noticed this when I was still a very firm pentecostal believer many many years ago - we lived in a tight nit religious community and moving down to a church in the south outside of the Pentecostal faith was like stepping into a strange warp in which religious had little meaning. . . racist, prejudice . . . all these things.

I met so many peole in our first southern church that seemed completely godless - there for looks only. Religions then occured to me to be a fashion that was worn and nothing more than a mere accoutrement.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
I wanted to see if religious people would vote for a president who shared all of his views on politics (excepting the religious points of social conservatism) but didn't believe in God.

Discuss
Click to expand...

I am a Christian but I would have no problem voting for an atheist as long as they did not threaten religous freedom. One of my best friends is atheist.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
To quote Voltaire, "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." If in the afterlife I am not held accountable for my current actions, and I'm in a position of absolute power, what incentive do I have to not abuse it?
Click to expand...

Absolute power to do what? Kill and steal with impunity? We'll lock you up for that. Generally act like a prick? People will shun you for that and opportunities to better your life will be missed. Emotionally abuse the people around you? You'll drive them away.

You don't need to wait until you die to be held accountable for your actions. That happens every day.
 
Paschendale said:
Absolute power to do what? Kill and steal with impunity? We'll lock you up for that. Generally act like a prick? People will shun you for that and opportunities to better your life will be missed. Emotionally abuse the people around you? You'll drive them away.

You don't need to wait until you die to be held accountable for your actions. That happens every day.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of these fellas?
 

Attachments

  • GERhitler2.JPG
    GERhitler2.JPG
    8.4 KB · Views: 186
  • stalin.jpg
    stalin.jpg
    6.6 KB · Views: 182
  • PolPot.jpg
    PolPot.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 184
  • olcovers627-L.zip&file=6274979-L.jpg
    olcovers627-L.zip&file=6274979-L.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 381
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Many athiests only don't believe becaues they don't see reason for it - many have and do change their views based on things they experience in tehir lives.

Likewise: religious people can do the same and let go of their beliefs.
Click to expand...
I never said they couldn't 'let go'. I was explaining why religious people and theists are often more likely to consider belief more important than atheists would consider non-belief.

But in my experience: most religious people are't truly religious - it's a social appearance they're upkeeping, or merely holding onto their upbringing and so on. I've met numerous religoius people who go through all the motions but don't truly believe what they claim to represent. . . I first noticed this when I was still a very firm pentecostal believer many many years ago - we lived in a tight nit religious community and moving down to a church in the south outside of the Pentecostal faith was like stepping into a strange warp in which religious had little meaning. . . racist, prejudice . . . all these things.

I met so many peole in our first southern church that seemed completely godless - there for looks only. Religions then occured to me to be a fashion that was worn and nothing more than a mere accoutrement.
Click to expand...
Sure, but a lot of religious people and theists don't feel that way. You asked: If we can get over our religious disbeliefs in favor over the Congressmember or President who might do best in the office then why can't some of you do the same?

People can, but many don't because their religious beliefs really are, in fact, hugely deterministic in terms of their decisions and behavior. Atheism rarely, if ever, has the same type of influence over people's beliefs. So, your opinion that religion is 'worn' has no effect on the fact that it's influences a lot of people political decisions and behaviors. In many ways, asking many people to 'get over their religious beliefs' in choosing a candidate is almost as impossible as asking them to give up their political beliefs when choosing a candidate.
 
S.E. Cupp would make a great president, and she is an athiest, but she understands that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
 
Amigo said:
S.E. Cupp would make a great president, and she is an athiest, but she understands that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Click to expand...

SE Cupp; hot, batsh!t crazy. And probably posing as an atheist. If she is truthful, then she's the least informed atheist of all time.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I never said they couldn't 'let go'. I was explaining why religious people and theists are often more likely to consider belief more important than atheists would consider non-belief.


Sure, but a lot of religious people and theists don't feel that way. You asked: If we can get over our religious disbeliefs in favor over the Congressmember or President who might do best in the office then why can't some of you do the same?

People can, but many don't because their religious beliefs really are, in fact, hugely deterministic in terms of their decisions and behavior. Atheism rarely, if ever, has the same type of influence over people's beliefs. So, your opinion that religion is 'worn' has no effect on the fact that it's influences a lot of people political decisions and behaviors. In many ways, asking many people to 'get over their religious beliefs' in choosing a candidate is almost as impossible as asking them to give up their political beliefs when choosing a candidate.
Click to expand...

well - their religoius beliefs are why they won't support an athiest: they're told from day one that being belief-less is godlessness and puts you in league with the devil himself.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Ever heard of these fellas? What's your point?
View attachment 67122695

View attachment 67122697

View attachment 67122698

View attachment 67122699

View attachment 67122700

Your overstating the ties between Marxism and atheism. Atheism in communist dictatorships comes from a specific type of interpretation; Marxist dialectical materialism. Atheism comes from the political ideaology. Just because a leader was Marxist doesn't create some sort of inherent tie to atheism.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that there are ties between Marxism and atheism, or even totalitarianism and atheism in particular. I have a similar issue with religions that don't posit a life after this one.

How many people have those five killed compared to the four I presented? Or, perhaps a fairer challenge, what proportion of the people they governed did they kill?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
well - their religoius beliefs are why they won't support an athiest: they're told from day one that being belief-less is godlessness and puts you in league with the devil himself.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah - that's my point. Since religion influences their political decisions and behavior, then they will likely consider the religion of the candidate. Since non-belief does not influence atheists' political decisions to the same extent, then atheists will be less likely to be impacted by the religion or lack thereof of the candidate. All of this is why religious people aren't often going to 'let go' of their beliefs in the same way atheists have.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
How many people have those five killed compared to the four I presented? Or, perhaps a fairer challenge, what proportion of the people they governed did they kill?
Click to expand...

Your point is baseless. The atheism of the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rogue wasn't really the active agent behind their atrocities. Had they been religious and Marxist, they would've done the same things. The difference between Stalin and King Abdullah is Abdullah uses Islamism directly for his atrocities and human rights abuses. Stalin/Pol Pot's "atheism" was secondary at best and not really a contributing factor behind their murderous reigns.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
To quote Voltaire, "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." If in the afterlife I am not held accountable for my current actions, and I'm in a position of absolute power, what incentive do I have to not abuse it?
Click to expand...
Human compassion, maybe?

BTW Voltaire was a deist, and didn't believe in any of the superstition and magic surrounding God. He believed that natural sequences could still explain the world. So he probably wouldn't say that God made moral rules, and was probably making a comment on human stupidity rather than human morality.
 
MadLib said:
Human compassion, maybe?

BTW Voltaire was a deist, and didn't believe in any of the superstition and magic surrounding God. He believed that natural sequences could still explain the world. So he probably wouldn't say that God made moral rules, and was probably making a comment on human stupidity rather than human morality.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. The following reveals the context from his Epistle to the author of the book, The Three Impostors:

"If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminencies disdain
The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed."
 
Fruityfact said:
Religion requires belief/faith in what one cannot see or prove. How is that comparable to measuring the ocean temp going up 1 degree?
Click to expand...

The belief is not in whether or not the climate changes, but in whether or not human presence on the planet is causing it. We haven't had enough time (not nearly enough time) yet to prove that is the case. Until there is ample time and data, those who believe we are causing it merely believe it.
 
MadLib said:
Human compassion, maybe?
Click to expand...

It all depends on one's understanding of the term compassion. Some view it as self-sacrifice regardless of reality. Others (myself included) view it as understanding, without the necessity of corrective action.
 
Thrilla said:
would I vote for an atheist?... it's possible, but probably not... it depends on how militant he is about his atheism and how he feels about other peoples religion.
Atheists who are fair and reasonable towards religion are few and far between.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think they are few and far between, unless you're talking about militant atheists on the internet who band together to trash-talk ALL religion. I'm non-religious. I don't believe there is a divine diety in the sky. However, I'm also extremely pro-religious freedom... ALL religious freedom. I was arguing that the Ground Zero Mosque had every right to exist at the same time I was arguing that a Southern Baptist Church had every right to build on property that was next to a mosque.

The problem I see with religion as a whole is that (A) most people are only concerned with the freedom of their personal religion, and not concerned with the freedom of other religions; and (B) I believe government must be secular in order to prevent religious ideology of any kind from being codified into law and forced on an entire populace. We've seen what Islamic theocracies have wrought. We've seen what Jewish theocracies have wrought. I have no doubt that Christian theocracies would wreak the same.

A true atheist will staunchly support the freedom of all religions, if for no other reason that to support the freedom of the non-religious in the bargain.
 
DiAnna said:
The problem I see with religion as a whole is that (A) most people are only concerned with the freedom of their personal religion, and not concerned with the freedom of other religions; and (B) I believe government must be secular in order to prevent religious ideology of any kind from being codified into law and forced on an entire populace. We've seen what Islamic theocracies have wrought. We've seen what Jewish theocracies have wrought. I have no doubt that Christian theocracies would wreak the same.

A true atheist will staunchly support the freedom of all religions, if for no other reason that to support the freedom of the non-religious in the bargain.
Click to expand...

I've never met an atheist whom I found to be intolerant of the religious. He may have thought they were silly and superstitious, but always the tolerant gentleman. In addition, the atheists I know, and have known, had good sound moral principles (well, except for one, and he was just a plain old hedonist :mrgreen:).
 
Black_Zawisza said:
I'm not saying that there are ties between Marxism and atheism, or even totalitarianism and atheism in particular. I have a similar issue with religions that don't posit a life after this one.

How many people have those five killed compared to the four I presented? Or, perhaps a fairer challenge, what proportion of the people they governed did they kill?
Click to expand...

How many thousands of times will people spew this crap? I mean isnt this the lesser of two evil argument? What you are saying is that religion is evil but not as evil as Atheism, but non the less still evil.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
How many thousands of times will people spew this crap? I mean isnt this the lesser of two evil argument? What you are saying is that religion is evil but not as evil as Atheism, but non the less still evil.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that I would rather live in a theocratic Muslim state than an atheistic one. Naturally, I would prefer a secular state to both.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Ever heard of these fellas?
Click to expand...

Life's not always fair, and the bad guys aren't always defeated in some kind of ironic, feel good twist. If we focus more on a magical second life, as opposed to this one, the only one we know, then men like those will be able to hold power, because we will be content to let them do as they please, so long as we are rewarded later on.

Besides, they have been judged and punished. They're your go to examples of evil in the last century. The Hitlers changed their name. Our rewards or punishments come from the legacy we leave, not whether we're perpetually high in heaven or miserable in hell. They will go down in history as terrible people, disowned by their families, and in Hitler's case, a source for national shame. His entire culture rejects him and everything he stood for. That's real punishment. Literally everything he struggled for was in vain. He wasted his life, and made the world a worse place for being in it. How would you like to have a legacy like that? I know I wouldn't.

So actually... maybe life is fair. The good are rewarded and the wicked are punished. Just not the way you'd like.

Black_Zawisza said:
I'm saying that I would rather live in a theocratic Muslim state than an atheistic one. Naturally, I would prefer a secular state to both.
Click to expand...

How is an atheistic state not a secular one? Both are characterized by a disinterest in religion.
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
I'm saying that I would rather live in a theocratic Muslim state than an atheistic one. Naturally, I would prefer a secular state to both.
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware that Christians believe that other religions are preferable over Atheism because their work is mostly done. But do you prefer A Christian state over a secular state?
 
Paschendale said:
Life's not always fair, and the bad guys aren't always defeated in some kind of ironic, feel good twist. If we focus more on a magical second life, as opposed to this one, the only one we know, then men like those will be able to hold power, because we will be content to let them do as they please, so long as we are rewarded later on.
Click to expand...
It's not an either/or proposition. Why not focus on both?

Besides, they have been judged and punished. They're your go to examples of evil in the last century. The Hitlers changed their name. Our rewards or punishments come from the legacy we leave, not whether we're perpetually high in heaven or miserable in hell. They will go down in history as terrible people, disowned by their families, and in Hitler's case, a source for national shame. His entire culture rejects him and everything he stood for. That's real punishment. Literally everything he struggled for was in vain. He wasted his life, and made the world a worse place for being in it. How would you like to have a legacy like that? I know I wouldn't.
Click to expand...
You'd care about your mortal legacy more than you would care about heaven or hell? Huh?

That's because you're a normal person. There are people out there who couldn't care less about such things.

So actually... maybe life is fair. The good are rewarded and the wicked are punished. Just not the way you'd like.
Click to expand...
Assuming a materialist universe, I'll wager that few of them have been punished in ways that matter to them.


How is an atheistic state not a secular one? Both are characterized by a disinterest in religion.
Click to expand...
State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Secular state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
Yes I am aware that Christians believe that other religions are preferable over Atheism because their work is mostly done. But do you prefer A Christian state over a secular state?
Click to expand...
A secular state, I would hope. If I answered otherwise, I'd be no libertarian.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom