• 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!

An Atheist President?

An Atheist President?


  • Total voters
    46
Certainly it's important to consider that an atheist president could just as easily state that, as a believer in true science, he has concluded that homosexuality is a biologically inappropriatel act, such conclusion based entirely upon scientific studies of the anatomical makeup of humans, species' need to procreate, etc., etc., therefore he is banning homosexuality by Executive Order.

There is no logical reason to conclude that an atheist president would be any more in favor of homosexuality than a Christian president.

My guess is that, were the OP to have considered that aspect, this thread would never have come into existence.
 
Last edited:
Certainly it's important to consider that an atheist president could just as easily state that, as a believer in true science, he has concluded that homosexuality is an unnatural act, such conclusion based entirely upon scientific studies of the anatomical makeup of humans, species need to procreate, etc., etc., therefore he is banning homosexuality.

There is no logical reason to conclude that an atheist president would be any more in favor of homosexuality than a Christian president.

Your desperate attempt to characterize the atheist thought process has FAILED.
 
Your desperate attempt to characterize the atheist thought process has FAILED.

No, I'm correct.

Particularly with this sentence:

"There is no logical reason to conclude that an atheist president would be any more in favor of homosexuality than a Christian president."
 
You're right, it has failed.

Atheists don't demand all human behaviour must conform to some "natural acts."

I don't know where such an argument came from.
 
You're right, it has failed.

Atheists don't demand all human behaviour must conform to some "natural acts."

I don't know where such an argument came from.

Changed "unnatural" to "biologically inappropriate." Happy now?
 
No, I'm correct.

Particularly with this sentence: "There is no logical reason to conclude that an atheist president would be any more in favor of homosexuality than a Christian president."

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make you correct. At the very least, an atheist president would have no innate bias AGAINST homosexuality, as Christians do. They would be impartial.

Now, would an atheist be more willing to look at the science which suggests that homosexuality is natural than a Christian, with his divine bias and aversion to science?
 
Changed "unnatural" to "biologically inappropriate." Happy now?

I wasn't unhappy in the first place.

But what makes anyone think atheists would make demands about "natural" or "biologically [...]appropriate" behaviour?

When and where have atheists been making such suggestions about private, individual consensual sexual behaviour?
 
Whether profiling is necessary is irrelevant to what we were discussing. You said that Harris "in no way favors discrimination." However, since he favors profiling, he does favor discrimination and so do you apparently. Again, the issue was whether or not Harris favors discrimination. He does.

Profiling is just a nasty word for learning from experience. If someone said brown dogs have a higher incidence of biting people, you would be on the look out for brown dogs. Saying this caution is discriminatory is just giving it a bad label.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

Having religion or not having religion has ZERO to do with being president the same way race, sexuality and gender also do not.

In general you pick the best person for the job and one that realizes that his job is to do whats best for America per our rights, laws, liberties and freedoms.

If a person cant separate themselves to a substantial degree between their religion and presidential duties then YES they would be a horrible president and could never get my vote but that not the case typically.
 
Profiling is just a nasty word for learning from experience. If someone said brown dogs have a higher incidence of biting people, you would be on the look out for brown dogs. Saying this caution is discriminatory is just giving it a bad label.
No, profiling is discrimination - period. Just because you don't like that it's discrimination doesn't mean that it isn't. This means that Sam Harris, contrary to what you said earlier, supports discrimination - period. Funny that someone who's username is "knowledge=power" so readily rejects knowledge that makes him uncomfortable. Does this mean that, according to your username, you are weak?
 
No, profiling is discrimination - period. Just because you don't like that it's discrimination doesn't mean that it isn't. This means that Sam Harris, contrary to what you said earlier, supports discrimination - period. Funny that someone who's username is "knowledge=power" so readily rejects knowledge that makes him uncomfortable. Does this mean that, according to your username, you are weak?

Lol. I even tried to explain it in the simplest of terms, but yet, you dont understand. I'm glad you don't work for TSA.
 
Lol. I even tried to explain it in the simplest of terms, but yet, you dont understand. I'm glad you don't work for TSA.

nothing wrong with your explanation or his understanding, his statement is still 100% true.

You could argue whether the discrimination is needed, sound, logical, justified etc but the fact remains its discrimination :shrug:
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

No. I think it is idiotic to factor a person's religious beliefs into your decision to vote for them. That includes the lack thereof. What you should be looking at is what they are going to do as president and how are they going to fix issues facing our nation. To vote for someone because of their religion is a silly as voting for them because of a letter in front of their name, their skin color, what state they are from or other things that ultimately won't matter in office.
 
Back
Top Bottom