• 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
So, you are comparing belief in climate change to belief in religion? You cannot really compare the two...One you can prove/disprove, the other is Religion

Contrary to atheist belief religion does not have have to involve the belief in a deity. Religion is a body of persons adhering to a certain set of beliefs and practices. The belief in man climate change is no different than another religion. Man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts believe that man is causing the climate to change. They believe that people should minimize their carbon footprint, believe that we need cap and trade laws,believe that we should recycle, believe that they should enact all sorts of laws they believe will minimize this man made climate change that they believe in.Some of these man made global warming fairy tale zealots believe that the world will flood as a result of man made global warming. Many of their practices that center around their man made global warming fairy tale religion are recycling,buying energy efficient light bulbs, buying hybrid cars or cars with high gas mileage, buying from local farms,buying organic foods(not sure how that helps the environment since you need more land to grow the same around as regular farming), buying ethanol fuel(not sure hose that helps the environment since you need a lot of land to grow crops for ethanol and creates food shortage),fuel their car up at certain times of the day, push for law makers to make laws based on their man made global warming fairy tale beliefs and many other things.
 
...For example, liberals concerned about climate change want to use the force of law to make people conform to what they believe. How is religion any different than that?
This post demonstrates yet again the misunderstanding of what a belief is. A belief doesn't have to be supported by anything. As soon as a belief is supported by some evidence, and many things labeled as beliefs are, they can move on to be called theory etc. Climate change has gone way beyond belief. In fact I don't think it was ever a belief. Climate change, that is the particular one where the activities of people are causal, is now a well developed theory. I take the chances that it is essentially correct to be about 80%. That could be parsed into what has the most effect, least, negative, etc., but that is not the point. So I don't believe Climate Change is going to happen, I think it only has about 80% chance of being pretty bad. So I guess I'm not a Liberal Believer. So conservative believers what are you going to label me?
 
Atatürk isnt a believer but muslim turks still think that he cant be replaced by anybody as a leader.
 
This post demonstrates yet again the misunderstanding of what a belief is. A belief doesn't have to be supported by anything. As soon as a belief is supported by some evidence, and many things labeled as beliefs are, they can move on to be called theory etc. Climate change has gone way beyond belief. In fact I don't think it was ever a belief. Climate change, that is the particular one where the activities of people are causal, is now a well developed theory. I take the chances that it is essentially correct to be about 80%. That could be parsed into what has the most effect, least, negative, etc., but that is not the point. So I don't believe Climate Change is going to happen, I think it only has about 80% chance of being pretty bad. So I guess I'm not a Liberal Believer. So conservative believers what are you going to label me?

At 80%? I label you a fanatic. LOL

Incidentally, I think there is, at least, as much evidence of God as there is that man controls the global climate.
 
I'm not just comparing it, I'm saying it's the exact same thing. People act on their morals, beliefs, ethics, whatever, all the time. Acting on religious beliefs is no different and no worse than anything else that requires a little faith to believe in, like global warming.
I guess I have to go on. I have more than 25 years experience of being a design engineer. My coworkers would often ask if I believed that my proposal for a design would work. In most environments I was forced to lie and answer "Yes!" since the people couldn't perform in an environment where I was only 95% sure that my design theory would work. Of course I couldn't mention theory. In certain small groups I could be honest, but we had to insure that no one was present that operated only with only absolutes, i.e. beliefs. What was interesting about the staff in our selected small group is most had religious 'beliefs'; however, what was different was their beliefs were supported by the results of operating using them, not so much because they were in the Book. That is the theory in the Book was supported by tests in the field.
(Occasionally I'd already have a prototype working, so I could almost honestly say I believed it would work.)
 
Last edited:
At 80%? I label you a fanatic. LOL

Incidentally, I think there is, at least, as much evidence of God as there is that man controls the global climate.

Oh, gosh, I don't think man controls the global climate, no where close.
I to have seen so much 'evidence' of God, in Japan, Thailand, etc.
 
I'm not just comparing it, I'm saying it's the exact same thing. People act on their morals, beliefs, ethics, whatever, all the time. Acting on religious beliefs is no different and no worse than anything else that requires a little faith to believe in, like global warming.

Contrary to atheist belief religion does not have have to involve the belief in a deity.

Religion requires belief/faith in what one cannot see or prove. How is that comparable to measuring the ocean temp going up 1 degree?
 
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

Not ever. According to our social contract, all rights come from God. If you don't believe in God, you therefore don't believe in any of those rights, because how could those rights come from someone who doesn't exist.
 
... How is that comparable to measuring the ocean temp going up 1 degree?
Let me take on the 'Believers' position on this, because I used to get this all the time.
1) You only made one measurement! How are you sure that it is correct?
2) How do you know absolutely that it's not normal to have the temperature go up one degree.
3) Oh, you made 10,000 measurements, but some were colder, haven't you disproved your theory?
4) You would loose your funding if you didn't find something, so how do I know you're are telling the truth?
 
The fact that one even has to ask such a question shows the utter failure of the framers of the Constitution to abolish religious persecution. We are not a Christian nation nor a Atheist nation Etc. and its asinine to give the president a personal religious test. It makes just as much sense as only voting for green eyed candidates, since you are green eyed.
 
Not ever. According to our social contract, all rights come from God. If you don't believe in God, you therefore don't believe in any of those rights, because how could those rights come from someone who doesn't exist.

Well there is this thing called the American Constitution..
 
Religion requires belief/faith in what one cannot see or prove. How is that comparable to measuring the ocean temp going up 1 degree?

It's not the objective measuring of the ocean that's "belief". The belief comes in saying that it was certainly man who caused it.
 
Exactly, it would depend. If he/she was as crazy antagonistic to religion as I've seen some (I do disagree that it's "most") be here, than no.

And yet being crazy antagonistic to other religions (such as the widespread demonization of Islam, the substantial sect of conservatives who refuse to endorse Romney specifically for his Mormonism, the substantial lack of acceptance of Wicca) and to the non religious is constantly given a pass. The race to be holier than thou is the exact thing we're discussing in threads about Santorum. The whole SSM controversy is entirely one religion trying to dominate everyone else. This birth control argument is the presumption that the religious can dictate policy to the rest of us.

Religion gets a huge amount of special treatment in this country and any resistance to it is labeled "militant atheism".

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.

Militant religionism is the bread and butter of the American right. As I said above, any expression of distrust or condemnation of religion is called militant, even if it is a fair and accurate criticism.
 
That's part of the social contract I mentioned...please continue.
God is not the legal definer of our laws, the Constitution is. In fact the framers were quite clear on that matter. And where the framers got their ideas is not relevant since it is clear that no religious test shall be given to anybody in the government. SO your social contract is only a personal opinion.
 
I probably would choose an athiest over any of the "so called" christian candidates the republicans currently have to offer. I wish it really didn't matter. Desiring smaller government, but then wanting to interfere in women's private lives, and dictate what is or isn't allowed in the bedroom, is not acceptable. Clearly, to me, our founding fathers worked hard to establish a secular government. They were extremely catious to prevent religion from participating in government.
 
I voted yes however I would much rather have an agnostic as POTUS. They're as close to neutral on the subject as you can get.
 
Not ever. According to our social contract, all rights come from God. If you don't believe in God, you therefore don't believe in any of those rights, because how could those rights come from someone who doesn't exist.
Maybe nobody has to give them to you; just the fact that you are an intelligent and conscious being means that you automatically have your rights instead of it being a gift.
 
Maybe nobody has to give them to you; just the fact that you are an intelligent and conscious being means that you automatically have your rights instead of it being a gift.
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?
 
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
I'd vote for an atheist. However, if there were two similar candidates that I liked and one was atheist and the other was theist, I'd vote for the latter.
 
I think ti's funny that some people REALLY care that much (not everyone - of course)

It's funny: us athiests have never had an athiest to vote for - so we end up voting for believers based on politics and these other things that matter so much more :shrug: We have to accept that most people are religious.

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?
 
I think ti's funny that some people REALLY care that much (not everyone - of course)

It's funny: us athiests have never had an athiest to vote for - so we end up voting for believers based on politics and these other things that matter so much more :shrug: We have to accept that most people are religious.

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?
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.
 
I think ti's funny that some people REALLY care that much (not everyone - of course)

It's funny: us athiests have never had an athiest to vote for - so we end up voting for believers based on politics and these other things that matter so much more :shrug: We have to accept that most people are religious.

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?

it's not a matter of "we can't" , it's a matter of "we don't have to"
it's one of the perks of being in the vast majority ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom