• 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
JustinS said:
No, cultural conditioning doesn't work that way at all. Different cultures and socioeconomic manifestations have been shown to radically shape one's worldview or ethical standpoints, along with one's social behavior. Religion is just one example.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good justification for considering a presidential candidate's chosen religion, or lack thereof.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Its called freewill. Homo sapiens existed long before the bible existed. If humans needed the bible in order to decide what is moral and what is not then mankind would have vanished long before the bible was even written. Plus many other cultures exist that are not Christian and do not have any different morals than anyone else. Humans in reality are not amoral until they learn the teachings of an religion. Sure there may be cultural differences between western civilization and other civilizations but the root morals of mankind are universal. And the belief that only believers in a god are moral is primitive and naive at best.
Click to expand...

Even within America, many of us have differing morals.
 
Peter Grimm said:
That sounds like a good justification for considering a presidential candidate's chosen religion, or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
I would consider his religion only if it played a role in his political views.
 
JustinS said:
I would consider his religion only if it played a role in his political views.
Click to expand...

- How can you ascertain a political candidates true political views? Politicians will promise the moon (or a moon base, in some cases) in order to get elected.

- Is there really such a distinction between a candidate's political views and his personal views? My opinion is that a politician's personal views seep in to his policy.
 
Peter Grimm said:
- How can you ascertain a political candidates true political views? Politicians will promise the moon (or a moon base, in some cases) in order to get elected.
Click to expand...
Then why vote at all?

Peter Grimm said:
- Is there really such a distinction between a candidate's political views and his personal views? My opinion is that a politician's personal views seep in to his policy.
Click to expand...
There is a distinction, and personal views do seep into political views. Religion frequently affects political policy.
 
JustinS said:
Then why vote at all?
Click to expand...

Vote for something that's harder to fake, like religion.

JustinS said:
There is a distinction, and personal views do seep into political views. Religion frequently affects political policy.
Click to expand...

This is another good argument for why a candidate's chosen religion is germane.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Vote for something that's harder to fake, like religion.
Click to expand...
So, you would not take into account the proclaimed policy of somebody seeking to hold political office?


Peter Grimm said:
This is another good argument for why a candidate's chosen religion is germane.
Click to expand...
I never said it wasn't, in many cases.
 
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'd venture that an atheist president would actually be more moral. After all, if the only legacy s/he will leave is what they did in office as there's nothing after life and everyone who will remember you personally will eventually die, they'd make in theory more practical moral decisions then someone who has heaven awaiting them. Just an idea.
 
obvious Child said:
I'd venture that an atheist president would actually be more moral. After all, if the only legacy s/he will leave is what they did in office as there's nothing after life and everyone who will remember you personally will eventually die, they'd make in theory more practical moral decisions then someone who has heaven awaiting them. Just an idea.
Click to expand...

So the belief in an afterlife could cause someone to be less moral?
 
JustinS said:
So, you would not take into account the proclaimed policy of somebody seeking to hold political office?
Click to expand...

I personally see very little distinction. Religion is inherently infused with a unique philosophy, which leads to an ideology, which shapes policy.


JustinS said:
I never said it wasn't, in many cases.
Click to expand...

True, you made a good point.
 
Peter Grimm said:
So the belief in an afterlife could cause someone to be less moral?
Click to expand...

Potentially. If this is just a test and it really doesn't matter once you get in, it's far less of a concern how you're remembered compared to that memory being the only thing you have left as a link to the living world.

That said, I personally think people are inherently evil and will do evil things regardless of what they profess to believe in.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I personally see very little distinction. Religion is inherently infused with a unique philosophy, which leads to an ideology, which shapes policy.
Click to expand...
It is still very possible for an atheist to share the same political views as a religious person.
 
obvious Child said:
Potentially. If this is just a test and it really doesn't matter once you get in, it's far less of a concern how you're remembered compared to that memory being the only thing you have left as a link to the living world.

That said, I personally think people are inherently evil and will do evil things regardless of what they profess to believe in.
Click to expand...

This is a graded test. How well you do determines whether you get in. That concept acts as an incentive to live a moral life.

I agree that there can be moral people who are atheists, but I also believe that good people gravitate toward religion.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Even within America, many of us have differing morals.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the major ones like murder and rape for example or the religious ones like most of the ten commandments (which btw seem to ignore many modern day morals and is mostly about god)?
 
Peter Grimm said:
This is a graded test. How well you do determines whether you get in. That concept acts as an incentive to live a moral life.
Click to expand...

The question is by whom and on what test. We believe we know but there is no way to know. Furthermore, even within religions there are clear arguments as to what gets you in and what disqualifies you. And then there is the ugly potential that the Real God(s) are the one or ones we never heard of and we're all doomed because no one follows their set of rules.

I agree that there can be moral people who are atheists, but I also believe that good people gravitate toward religion.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but fact that atheists do not make up their similar share in prisons as in the general populace suggests there's something more. Then again, I knew an atheist who thought because there was no punishment, he could do whatever he wanted. A bit of a psychopath.
 
I don't know if this has been said or not so if it has please forgive me. I just didn't feel like going through pages and pages of posts.

Personally I could understand why someone that is religious would not want to elect an athiest.

Athiests are not known for their tolerance of religious discussions. And there have been quite a few athiests of late that seem to make a point of crapping on religion from the pov of those that are religious.

Also I could just imagine how an athiest would handle a foriegn leader who's views are based entirely upon their religion.

I am not saying that ALL athiests are like this. But from my experiance there are alot that are like this.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't know if this has been said or not so if it has please forgive me. I just didn't feel like going through pages and pages of posts.

Personally I could understand why someone that is religious would not want to elect an athiest.

Athiests are not known for their tolerance of religious discussions. And there have been quite a few athiests of late that seem to make a point of crapping on religion from the pov of those that are religious.

Also I could just imagine how an athiest would handle a foriegn leader who's views are based entirely upon their religion.

I am not saying that ALL athiests are like this. But from my experiance there are alot that are like this.
Click to expand...

I think that an Atheist would better to deal with religious countries. A Christian President would be biased by their own religious beliefs. Of course there are people who can and do put their religious or non religious beliefs to the side for diplomatic reasoning. I know that most Atheists must endure religious people sometimes in order to not be persecuted by them during the mundane parts of daily living. But then the hate by all religions of Atheists would make diplomatic relations strained. But would it be more strained than between Christians and Muslims?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I think that an Atheist would better to deal with religious countries. A Christian President would be biased by their own religious beliefs. Of course there are people who can and do put their religious or non religious beliefs to the side for diplomatic reasoning. I know that most Atheists must endure religious people sometimes in order to not be persecuted by them during the mundane parts of daily living. But then the hate by all religions of Atheists would make diplomatic relations strained. But would it be more strained than between Christians and Muslims?
Click to expand...

There might be strain between a Christian and a Muslim. But I don't think that it would be as much when compared to an Athiest and a Muslim. At least a Christian and a Muslim have a reletively common background. An athiest has no common ground what so ever with any religion.

As I said earlier I would rather have an agnostic in the POTUS seat for the simple fact that they are neutral on religion.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There might be strain between a Christian and a Muslim. But I don't think that it would be as much when compared to an Athiest and a Muslim. At least a Christian and a Muslim have a reletively common background. An athiest has no common ground what so ever with any religion.

As I said earlier I would rather have an agnostic in the POTUS seat for the simple fact that they are neutral on religion.
Click to expand...
I do not see why an agnostic Atheist would be considered neutral as opposed to a real Atheist. I think that you are assuming that all Atheists are of the extreme flavor that attacks religion. While those people do exist they are not the normal everyday Atheist.
It would be like asserting that all Muslim were like Bin Laden or that every Christian is like the Pope, neither being examples of the normal everyday Muslim or Christian.

The reality is that most Atheists dont really care about religion, they just are not religious. You are stereotyping a large section of society assuming that all Atheists are intolerant of religion. Perhaps it is your own bias that is dictating your opinion?
 
If he shares my political views and isn't the "evangelical" equivilent of an Athiest, I'd have no issue voting for them.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I do not see why an agnostic Atheist would be considered neutral as opposed to a real Atheist. I think that you are assuming that all Atheists are of the extreme flavor that attacks religion. While those people do exist they are not the normal everyday Atheist.
It would be like asserting that all Muslim were like Bin Laden or that every Christian is like the Pope, neither being examples of the normal everyday Muslim or Christian.

The reality is that most Atheists dont really care about religion, they just are not religious. You are stereotyping a large section of society assuming that all Atheists are intolerant of religion. Perhaps it is your own bias that is dictating your opinion?
Click to expand...

An agnostic is not an athiest. They do not know if a god/ess (plural or single) exists or not and they make no determination either way.

And yes I know that not all athiests are the same. But could someone that is religious take the chance that this or that particular athiest was the kind that doesn't give a crap? Everyone knows that politicians lie and smooth talk their way into their positions.
 
Zyphlin said:
If he shares my political views and isn't the "evangelical" equivilent of an Athiest, I'd have no issue voting for them.
Click to expand...

Evangelical atheists are just as annoying as religous fundamentalists.

But it's good I found a way to feel superior to both.
 
Jerry said:
The Constitution pre-supposed that rights exist, and the Decleration of Independance says they come from God. Our founders agreed that there was a God and that this is where our rights come from, so if you don't believe in God then you therefore can't logicaly believe in any rights God has given, because you can't receave anything from anyone who doesn't exist.

***
It's *the* social contract, not *my* social contract; I didn't write it and it doesn't only apply to me.
Click to expand...

The DOC states that rights are supplied by "Their Creator." "Their Creator" is being used as a pandering possesive description. It's supposed to unify everyone while also describing each induvidual's belief. (Pretty clever, if ya think about it) "Their Creator" describes each induviduals concept of a creator. Whether that is a deity, or the simple mechanisms that follow after the Big Bang is left up to the induvidual to decide.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The reality is that most Atheists dont really care about religion, they just are not religious. You are stereotyping a large section of society assuming that all Atheists are intolerant of religion. Perhaps it is your own bias that is dictating your opinion?
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Most people just don't understand atheism...period. Those who hold religious beliefs usually gravitate to the idea that being atheist is automatically anti-religion...or at the very least some type of indictment against religion.

The fact is...atheist can't grasp what it feels like to conceptualize the universe, or anything possibly beyond, in any other state of being other than empirically. There isn't a connection to any existence of a reality beyond those things that can't be humanly experienced.

I personally subscribe to the current scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. No more - no less.

I don't live my life trying to navigate my daily existence clinging to a blind faith that an invisible force that does not "empirically" make it's presence known is directing every event that exists in our known universe.

Until there is empirical evidence of a supernatural existence that created and maintains an ongoing relationship with all existing things...I won't be forced to participate in religious dogma...of which there are many claiming to be the only true religion. And that alone should be telling people something is unstable with a singular truth about the possibilities of supernatural entities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom