• 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
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?
Most atheists on this board and most atheist public figures are pretty disrespectful of religion and religious people. I don't think it's really much of a stereotype. It's inaccurate to say "all" atheists are like that, but in my experience, it's accurate to say many or most are, in fact, disrespectful towards religion and religious people or even theism in general. In fact, even the atheists in my personal life who are, on the surface, respectful, really believe pretty offensive things about theists and religion in general.

Consequently, while people may place all the blame of theists not wanting to elect atheists on the theists, claiming that we are just intolerant and bigoted, a great deal of the blame is on many atheists just like the blame for why many atheists can't stand religion is on bigoted religious people. If you want people to elect you, then don't say stuff like "imaginary friend" and call theists small minded or stuck in the dark ages.
 
Last edited:
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.
I basically agree. Also, I prefer a president that has a religion, answers to what it is, observes it to a rational level, and doesn't make it an important part of his policy basis. So what are my choices for the next election?
 
Most atheists on this board and most atheist public figures are pretty disrespectful of religion and religious people. I don't think it's really much of a stereotype. It's inaccurate to say "all" atheists are like that, but in my experience, it's accurate to say many or most are, in fact, disrespectful towards religion and religious people or even theism in general. In fact, even the atheists in my personal life who are, on the surface, respectful, really believe pretty offensive things about theists and religion in general.

Consequently, while people may place all the blame of theists not wanting to elect atheists on the theists, claiming that we are just intolerant and bigoted, a great deal of the blame is on many atheists just like the blame for why many atheists can't stand religion is on bigoted religious people. If you want people to elect you, then don't say stuff like "imaginary friend" and call theists small minded or stuck in the dark ages.

I don't completely disagree. Mud slings in both directions.

That said. When we articulate our experiences or opinions, we do so as "natural beings". In other words, we can't think or act in supernatural ways. Every facet of our lives are linked to things that we see, touch, taste, smell, or hear. This means that we live in an empirical existence.

We use "moral principles" (rules or guidelines of ethics) in the form of laws to maintain a sense of order in societies of mixed moral value beliefs. Usually laws are created by actually taking in consideration moral values from all walks of life - and then examining the most fundamentally non-discriminatory facet of all of various moral values - in order to create a law that is HOPEFULLY without prejudice against a particular set of moral values held by a particular group or society. That can be difficult at times.

With or without religious morals - humanity knows that if there is no law against cold blooded murder...or aggravated theft, or violating persons rights...etc...those things could comprise our species. It's just common sense. Most laws of our most fundamental laws are created out of the need to circumvent the damaging of the general welfare of our human species.

A VERY SERIOUS HUMAN DILEMMA

Most of our problems revolve around human beings (natural beings) attempting to use a specific set of moral values (a regimented or structured philosophy) to create moral principles (laws) used control empirical behaviors. Humanity is pitched in every direction by every religion created, that wants the world to follow only their moral doctrines that define the moral standards for every single human being.

So I believe that when posts are made that are attempts to impose a moral value, which is clearly a product of a "religion", then sparks will fly. And I'm not just talking about sparks by an agnostic or atheist, but among various members of different types of faith.

As I've stated many times before. All the atheist that I know have a profound respect for life. And equally important they are strong proponents of laws that are non-discriminatory, which exist for the purpose of preserving the greater welfare of all of humanity...our planet.

Okay, that's my stump speech for my candidacy for President of the United States of America. Thank you...
 
Well ya see, there's these people called assholes, and they're often on both sides of the spectrum.
 
I don't completely disagree. Mud slings in both directions.

That said. When we articulate our experiences or opinions, we do so as "natural beings". In other words, we can't think or act in supernatural ways. Every facet of our lives are linked to things that we see, touch, taste, smell, or hear. This means that we live in an empirical existence.

We use "moral principles" (rules or guidelines of ethics) in the form of laws to maintain a sense of order in societies of mixed moral value beliefs. Usually laws are created by actually taking in consideration moral values from all walks of life - and then examining the most fundamentally non-discriminatory facet of all of various moral values - in order to create a law that is HOPEFULLY without prejudice against a particular set of moral values held by a particular group or society. That can be difficult at times.

With or without religious morals - humanity knows that if there is no law against cold blooded murder...or aggravated theft, or violating persons rights...etc...those things could comprise our species. It's just common sense. Most laws of our most fundamental laws are created out of the need to circumvent the damaging of the general welfare of our human species.

A VERY SERIOUS HUMAN DILEMMA

Most of our problems revolve around human beings (natural beings) attempting to use a specific set of moral values (a regimented or structured philosophy) to create moral principles (laws) used control empirical behaviors. Humanity is pitched in every direction by every religion created, that wants the world to follow only their moral doctrines that define the moral standards for every single human being.

So I believe that when posts are made that are attempts to impose a moral value, which is clearly a product of a "religion", then sparks will fly. And I'm not just talking about sparks by an agnostic or atheist, but among various members of different types of faith.

As I've stated many times before. All the atheist that I know have a profound respect for life. And equally important they are strong proponents of laws that are non-discriminatory, which exist for the purpose of preserving the greater welfare of all of humanity...our planet.

Okay, that's my stump speech for my candidacy for President of the United States of America. Thank you...
Sure, I completely agree that morality could and would exist without religion which is why I said would vote for an atheist under certain conditions. I also know that atheists, like theists, have a diverse amount of political values. I'm sure that many atheists support non-discriminatory policies and policies that work to improve the welfare of humanity. None of this was in question for me. My only point was that the "face" of atheism in the United States is not a positive one, particularly in light of how many theists exist in the country. Consequently, your attempt to dismiss Kal'Stang's opinion as mere bias is unfounded in my experience. Like I said, the majority of atheists on this board and in the media are incredibly intolerant of religion in one way or another.

You can say that most of the atheists you know will support non-discriminatory policies and all that, but words don't mean much when people are consistently throwing out phrases like "imaginary friend" and "delusional". It's completely understandable that an atheist would have a slim chance at being elected when that sort of nonsense goes on so frequently.

None of this is to say that theists don't have their fair share of intolerant people. Because of those individuals, it's easy to understand why atheists wouldn't want theists in office. However, the only difference is that atheists are outnumbered.
 
Sure, I completely agree that morality could and would exist without religion which is why I said would vote for an atheist under certain conditions. I also know that atheists, like theists, have a diverse amount of political values. I'm sure that many atheists support non-discriminatory policies and policies that work to improve the welfare of humanity. None of this was in question for me. My only point was that the "face" of atheism in the United States is not a positive one, particularly in light of how many theists exist in the country. Consequently, your attempt to dismiss Kal'Stang's opinion as mere bias is unfounded in my experience. Like I said, the majority of atheists on this board and in the media are incredibly intolerant of religion in one way or another.

You can say that most of the atheists you know will support non-discriminatory policies and all that, but words don't mean much when people are consistently throwing out phrases like "imaginary friend" and "delusional". It's completely understandable that an atheist would have a slim chance at being elected when that sort of nonsense goes on so frequently.

None of this is to say that theists don't have their fair share of intolerant people. Because of those individuals, it's easy to understand why atheists wouldn't want theists in office. However, the only difference is that atheists are outnumbered.

Intolerance...? That's what keeps the world in such turmoil...wouldn't you agree? And that includes all persons of all beliefs around the globe.

As much as I'd like to say that I don't have my prejudices...I do. But one thing I try not to engage in "using my prejudices" so as to blatantly infringe on another's inalienable and legal rights in order to get my needs met.

Nobody is perfect. But one thing is a fact. Nobody is born intolerant, prejudice, bigoted, racist...etc.
 
Intolerance...? That's what keeps the world in such turmoil...wouldn't you agree? And that includes all persons of all beliefs around the globe.

As much as I'd like to say that I don't have my prejudices...I do. But one thing I try not to engage in "using my prejudices" so as to blatantly infringe on another's inalienable and legal rights in order to get my needs met.

Nobody is perfect. But one thing is a fact. Nobody is born intolerant, prejudice, bigoted, racist...etc.
Yeah, I agree with all of this and consequently, none of this adequately addresses either of my points. My points were: 1) I think you're wrong to say that Kal'Stang is merely projecting his own biases when he pointed out the intolerance of many atheists. 2) It's not just religious bigotry that makes theists not want an atheist president, it's also the fact the public face of atheism is intolerant of theism in one way or another. (#2 is a more general point not necessarily directed at you.)
 
Most atheists on this board and most atheist public figures are pretty disrespectful of religion and religious people. I don't think it's really much of a stereotype. It's inaccurate to say "all" atheists are like that, but in my experience, it's accurate to say many or most are, in fact, disrespectful towards religion and religious people or even theism in general. In fact, even the atheists in my personal life who are, on the surface, respectful, really believe pretty offensive things about theists and religion in general.

Consequently, while people may place all the blame of theists not wanting to elect atheists on the theists, claiming that we are just intolerant and bigoted, a great deal of the blame is on many atheists just like the blame for why many atheists can't stand religion is on bigoted religious people. If you want people to elect you, then don't say stuff like "imaginary friend" and call theists small minded or stuck in the dark ages.

I am not sure what kind of reasoning that you call that but it lacks reality. Your limited observance of Atheists does not represent all Atheists as a population. But it is by no means surprising that you felt that your individual opinion meant squat. Obviously like most theists you believe that any criticism of religions is considered attacking.

Your assertion that all Atheists are extremists makes no logical sense.
 
Sure, I completely agree that morality could and would exist without religion which is why I said would vote for an atheist under certain conditions. I also know that atheists, like theists, have a diverse amount of political values. I'm sure that many atheists support non-discriminatory policies and policies that work to improve the welfare of humanity. None of this was in question for me. My only point was that the "face" of atheism in the United States is not a positive one, particularly in light of how many theists exist in the country. Consequently, your attempt to dismiss Kal'Stang's opinion as mere bias is unfounded in my experience. Like I said, the majority of atheists on this board and in the media are incredibly intolerant of religion in one way or another.

You can say that most of the atheists you know will support non-discriminatory policies and all that, but words don't mean much when people are consistently throwing out phrases like "imaginary friend" and "delusional". It's completely understandable that an atheist would have a slim chance at being elected when that sort of nonsense goes on so frequently.

None of this is to say that theists don't have their fair share of intolerant people. Because of those individuals, it's easy to understand why atheists wouldn't want theists in office. However, the only difference is that atheists are outnumbered.
My personal experience and those of many others is that your observation is incorrect. I have observed that most atheists have to hide least they loose their job, etc.
 
I am not sure what kind of reasoning that you call that but it lacks reality. Your limited observance of Atheists does not represent all Atheists as a population. But it is by no means surprising that you felt that your individual opinion meant squat. Obviously like most theists you believe that any criticism of religions is considered attacking.

Your assertion that all Atheists are extremists makes no logical sense.
1. I don't think I've ever even used the word "extremists" in this thread. That is Strike 1 for you since you put words in my mouth.

2. I never said all atheists were like that. In fact, I said,
It's inaccurate to say "all" atheists are like that...

That is Strike 2 for you since you didn't read and Strike 3 since you put words in my mouth again.

3. I made it very clear that I was speaking solely from my experience. I purposely emphasized this by saying in each post phrases like "in my experience" and "I think". That's Strike 4 for not reading.

4. You say that that I "believe any criticism of religion is considered attacking". However, in my post, I criticize religious bigotry so no dice there either. That is Strike 5 for not reading, stereotyping and just plain not making any sense.

5. If you are an atheist, you just proved my point with your "obviously like most theists..." comment. Strike 6 for proving the point that you claimed "lacks reality."


In conclusion, you didn't actually respond to anything I wrote. You put words in my mouth, didn't actually read my post, accused me of doing things I didn't do and stereotyped theists thereby proving my point. Let's see if you now go back, read my comment and respond to what was actually said instead of contributing this Epic Fail of post that you just wrote in this thread.
 
My personal experience and those of many others is that your observation is incorrect. I have observed that most atheists have to hide least they loose their job, etc.
Another poster who says something that had nothing to do with my post. I already said that many atheists face bigotry from religious people so it's no surprise that some have to hide their non-belief. My experience on this board and with atheists in the media is that the majority of them are intolerant which is why they use words like "imaginary friend" to describe God and why they think religious people are stupid. If your experience is different, I'm not surprised, which is why I made it clear that it was "in my experience" and didn't just state my comments like facts.
 
I wonder how anyone says they don't think the basis of someone elses existence is credible without offending them? Seems like someone has to be an atheist with an agnostic presentation for the desired politically correct effect.
 
Yeah, I agree with all of this and consequently, none of this adequately addresses either of my points. My points were: 1) I think you're wrong to say that Kal'Stang is merely projecting his own biases when he pointed out the intolerance of many atheists. 2) It's not just religious bigotry that makes theists not want an atheist president, it's also the fact the public face of atheism is intolerant of theism in one way or another. (#2 is a more general point not necessarily directed at you.)

TPD, you'll have to forgive me. But would you please copy and paste anything that I've directly, or indirectly said about Kal'Stang's comments in this thread. I can't seem to find it.

Thank you...
 
Another poster who says something that had nothing to do with my post. I already said that many atheists face bigotry from religious people so it's no surprise that some have to hide their non-belief. My experience on this board and with atheists in the media is that the majority of them are intolerant which is why they use words like "imaginary friend" to describe God and why they think religious people are stupid. If your experience is different, I'm not surprised, which is why I made it clear that it was "in my experience" and didn't just state my comments like facts.
I re-read your post where you described your observations. I had responded that my observations have been different. I think they are different because a higher proportion of atheists hide they views compared to most Christians, therefore your not counting them at all. I still think that was related to your post, so please try again to have me understand.
 
- 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.

How do you ascertain a political candidates true beliefs? Politicians will say anything they can to get elected, even fake religion. At least you know the guy claiming atheism is honest since atheism carries such a heavy negative political toll that one isn't going to "fake" it.
 
Another poster who says something that had nothing to do with my post. I already said that many atheists face bigotry from religious people so it's no surprise that some have to hide their non-belief. My experience on this board and with atheists in the media is that the majority of them are intolerant which is why they use words like "imaginary friend" to describe God and why they think religious people are stupid. If your experience is different, I'm not surprised, which is why I made it clear that it was "in my experience" and didn't just state my comments like facts.

Squeaky wheel get's the grease as they say. The media is going to cover the most obnoxious of the folk, which is why you'll see some distortion of statistics. The end all be all is that if atheism ever had some outward mark so that people could tell who was an atheist; we'd be the most discriminated block of people. Thankfully we ain't got to run around with big red "A"s on our shirts.
 
How do you ascertain a political candidates true beliefs? Politicians will say anything they can to get elected, even fake religion. At least you know the guy claiming atheism is honest since atheism carries such a heavy negative political toll that one isn't going to "fake" it.

90% of respondents on this poll have said they would vote for an atheist. Isn't that evidence that atheism isn't such a heavy political toll?

To answer your question, it's a subjective process, but I am fairly certain that Rick Santorum, for example, is genuinely Catholic. He is Catholic even when it hurts him to be Catholic (abortion, contraception). I would say the same thing for Mitt Romney and his Mormonism. For better or worse, Romney would probably have more voters if he were not Mormon.

Gingrich, Paul, and Obama, on the other hand, seem to be much less driven by religion.

However, as I said, this is a subjective judgement.
 
Isn't that evidence that atheism isn't such a heavy political toll?

No because this is a political forum wherein people tend to be well more informed and active than the general populace. Look how many polls will have Ron Paul winning, doesn't mean that makes a difference outside this forum. Come on man.
 
Another poster who says something that had nothing to do with my post. I already said that many atheists face bigotry from religious people so it's no surprise that some have to hide their non-belief. My experience on this board and with atheists in the media is that the majority of them are intolerant which is why they use words like "imaginary friend" to describe God and why they think religious people are stupid. If your experience is different, I'm not surprised, which is why I made it clear that it was "in my experience" and didn't just state my comments like facts.

Yeah it is weird like that.. the intolerant ones make all the fuss and the noise and get all the attention, while the tolerant say little as a result of their tolerance and such go under the radar.

It is easy to see why people think that the majority of atheists are intolerant, while the reality is it is the outspoken minority.

And yes, for the most part atheists cannot comprehend or relate to your beliefs, this is why they are atheists.
 
No because this is a political forum wherein people tend to be well more informed and active than the general populace. Look how many polls will have Ron Paul winning, doesn't mean that makes a difference outside this forum. Come on man.

So people who tend to be more informed prefer atheist candidates?
 
So people who tend to be more informed prefer atheist candidates?

I think that more intelligent and informed people are less likely to vote on bias and more likely to vote on platform.
 
I think that more intelligent and informed people are less likely to vote on bias and more likely to vote on platform.

Why do you call a vote based on religion "bias," and a vote based on political bias "platform?"
 
TPD, you'll have to forgive me. But would you please copy and paste anything that I've directly, or indirectly said about Kal'Stang's comments in this thread. I can't seem to find it.

Thank you...
Meh, I got you mixed up with FreedomForAll. In either case, my comments direct responses to his criticisms of Kal'Stang's comments. So again, 1) I think it's wrong to say that Kal'Stang is merely projecting his own biases when he pointed out the intolerance of many atheists [because intolerant atheists are quite common in my experience]. 2) It's not just religious bigotry that makes theists not want an atheist president, it's also the fact the public face of atheism is intolerant of theism in one way or another. (#2 is a more general point not necessarily directed at you.)
 
Squeaky wheel get's the grease as they say. The media is going to cover the most obnoxious of the folk, which is why you'll see some distortion of statistics. The end all be all is that if atheism ever had some outward mark so that people could tell who was an atheist; we'd be the most discriminated block of people. Thankfully we ain't got to run around with big red "A"s on our shirts.
That's true and it's also true for religious people which is why I said earlier that it's also understandable that atheists wouldn't would religious people in office. I just think Freedom's implication that people don't have fair reason to think an atheist president might be intolerant of their religion is ridiculous.
 
Yeah it is weird like that.. the intolerant ones make all the fuss and the noise and get all the attention, while the tolerant say little as a result of their tolerance and such go under the radar.

It is easy to see why people think that the majority of atheists are intolerant, while the reality is it is the outspoken minority.
I agree.

And yes, for the most part atheists cannot comprehend or relate to your beliefs, this is why they are atheists.
I never understand this assertion. I am a theist and it's incredibly easy for me to comprehend and relate to the atheist position. I don't see why an atheist can't do the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom