• 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
Henrin said:
That appears to be a goalpost change. Your original position was that a great mind couldn't be religious
Click to expand...

Quote me or you're a liar.
 
Paschendale said:
It cannot make the US a religious free zone, but it does guarantee that religious laws cannot be imposed on non-believers. The establishment clause also means a lot more than simply disallowing the state from endorsing a single state religion. The establishment that it prohibits can also include effective and constructive establishment.



See, that's not right. If they believe in Martians, then they're probably dumb or nuts. We've examined Mars in great detail, and there's no one there. And that's why I certainly would respect the intelligence of an atheist over a theist, because the evidence against deities is tremendous. Someone who made real decisions about policy based on what he or she perceived as god handing out orders would bother me immensely, because that's kinda nuts to me. Bush defended the war in Iraq, back in 2004, by saying that he thought god had told him to bring freedom to Middle Eastern nations. Several of the Republican candidates in 2008 said that they believed that god had commanded them to run. Sure, some of them were just using religious rhetoric to pander for votes, but the ones that actually believe that there's a bearded old man up there who is taking an active part in our politics is scary. Paul Broun, a Georgia congressman, is on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and condemns a lot of modern biology as "lies from the pit of hell". That scares me, a lot. I don't see how a person who thinks that science is a tool by an evil satyr to trick people is qualified to make decisions about laws pertaining to science. Just like I don't see how a person who thinks that god maintains the world in a constant state is qualified to make decisions about the environment or climate change. I don't see how a person who thinks that their religion requires them to conduct a holy war on Islam is qualified to be commander in chief, either.

Leaders who actually think this stuff is true are very dangerous and should not be elected into office. Obviously, I'm not saying they should be legally prevented from running because of it, but they should be laughed out of the race, because they are nuts and are dangerous. And so we should care what they believe. We shouldn't elect conspiracy theorists either. Or lots of people who believe crazy things.
Click to expand...

And this type of hostility is what would make me seriously pause before I'd vote for an atheist. Politically active atheists often seem especially angry and hostile to religion. It would worry me that he'd want to outlaw my beliefs or something.
 
lizzie said:
It is quite apparent that sanity and intelligence are not pre-requisites for holding elected office.
Click to expand...

Didn't Bush Jr. say that the jury is still out on evolution?
 
Amadeus said:
I want that, in an ideal world, but that's not what my poll is referring to.
Click to expand...

Ok, to each their own. I actually appreciate the honesty.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I never said he wasn't intelligent. However, I don't consider Sam Harris any more respectful of Islam than I consider Peter King respectful of Islam. He is prejudiced and favors discrimination. That is as impermissible to me as prejudice and discrimination against gays by many Christians. And no, I don't think challenging religion in public discourse is, in itself, disrespectful. As someone who rejects much of religion and finds devout belief in it to be nonsensical for a variety of reasons, such a characterization of me is laughable and reflects only upon your own sensitivities towards criticism of atheists.
Click to expand...

He in no way favors discrimination. He is challenging the religion's radical nature, which is not practiced by all Muslims, but which we have seen practiced to the tune of 9/11. It is just as important that radical Christian practices should be challenged. Criticising any belief system which has the potential for violence should be paramount in public discourse. Religion has been shielded by a false belief that it is not allowed to be challenged. Every area of discourse known to man should be challenged and criticized. Open and honest discussion is the only way to progress as a society. And btw, I know nothing about you, so that first post of yours was very misleading.
 
X Factor said:
Ok, to each their own. I actually appreciate the honesty.
Click to expand...

I believe that religion and faith cloud reasoning. Even fake faith, such as Obama's, can be dangerous.
 
Amadeus said:
I believe that religion and faith cloud reasoning. Even fake faith, such as Obama's, can be dangerous.
Click to expand...

Hatred for all things religious do the same.
 
Amadeus said:
Good thing I'm not advocating for a president who hates religion.
Click to expand...

No, you wouldn't do something like that. You would just make it illegal for Christians run for office.
 
Voted no, I don't think an atheist would be ideal for the presidency. It wouldn't be easy for an atheist to get elected, no doubt.

However, I personally would vote for an atheist candidate if he/she is qualified and tolerant. All those anti-theists, just to add, are a massive no -- can't stand people like that. They're in the same boat as extreme right Christian fundamentalists for me.

The OP's posts are unsettling though, example of an atheist that wouldn't be fit to hold public office in this country. An evangelical can't run for office, what? Let freedom ring. *sigh*

I wonder how an agnostic would fare.
 
X Factor said:
No, you wouldn't do something like that. You would just make it illegal for Christians run for office.
Click to expand...

At least for the highest office. That includes Muslims, if its any consolation.
 
Van Basten said:
However, I personally would vote for an atheist candidate if he/she is qualified and tolerant. All those anti-theists, just to add, are a massive no -- can't stand people like that. They're in the same boat as extreme right Christian fundamentalists for me.
Click to expand...

Explain.

An evangelical can't run for office, what? Let freedom ring. *sigh*
Click to expand...

Do you know what the evangelical faith is all about?
 
X Factor said:
And this type of hostility is what would make me seriously pause before I'd vote for an atheist. Politically active atheists often seem especially angry and hostile to religion. It would worry me that he'd want to outlaw my beliefs or something.
Click to expand...

Would you worry that I would do that? Despite my saying over and over and over, including in the post that you quoted, that I wouldn't. Politically active theists seem especially angry and hostile to non-religion, and to scientific learning. It does worry me that they would want to outlaw non-belief, as they frequently try to do this. Maybe if theists, as the group in power, want to change this dynamic, then they should take the first step and reach out in compromise. How about officially amending the seven state constitutions that expressly prohibit non-believers from holding office? How about if North Carolina stopped trying to establish an official religion? If that is something you're afraid, then too bad for you, because you reap what you sow. Lucky for you, though, there are basically no prominent atheists who support outlawing of religion. The very fact that one of the prominent atheist movements is called "Freethinking" should tip you off to the whole "freedom of thought and religion" idea that even those who think religion is evil and that we'd all be better off without it, still prefer intellectual freedom over enforced anything.

Also, that you conflate simple criticism with hostility makes it difficult to take this position seriously. Is this sentence hostile or critical: "Refusing to take the threat of climate change seriously because you think that god won't let the world change on us is a dangerous and unfounded position to take."
 
Cats are not invisible
images.jpeg



.
Fisher said:
Don't you worship cats?
Click to expand...
 
Amadeus said:
Explain.



Do you know what the evangelical faith is all about?
Click to expand...

There are what I call evangelical atheists. Those who argue atheism with all the same fervor of an evangelical preacher.
 
specklebang said:
An Agnostic would be the best choice IMHO. Believing or not believing in invisible gods is a sign of insanity. Agnostics are realistic and logical, all the rest are either liars or fools.
Click to expand...

"Agnostic" is a weasel word. Most atheists are "agnostics" in this sense: of course believing that there's no gods is a mental disorder, not any kind of -ism.
 
images-1.jpeg


Cyrylek said:
"Agnostic" is a weasel word. Most atheists are "agnostics" in this sense: of course believing that there's no gods is a mental disorder, not any kind of -ism.
Click to expand...
 
Paschendale said:
Would you worry that I would do that? Despite my saying over and over and over, including in the post that you quoted, that I wouldn't. Politically active theists seem especially angry and hostile to non-religion, and to scientific learning. It does worry me that they would want to outlaw non-belief, as they frequently try to do this. Maybe if theists, as the group in power, want to change this dynamic, then they should take the first step and reach out in compromise. How about officially amending the seven state constitutions that expressly prohibit non-believers from holding office? How about if North Carolina stopped trying to establish an official religion? If that is something you're afraid, then too bad for you, because you reap what you sow. Lucky for you, though, there are basically no prominent atheists who support outlawing of religion. The very fact that one of the prominent atheist movements is called "Freethinking" should tip you off to the whole "freedom of thought and religion" idea that even those who think religion is evil and that we'd all be better off without it, still prefer intellectual freedom over enforced anything.
Click to expand...

This is funny Pasch. You're trying to convince me that atheists would not seek to pass laws antagonistic to religion all while saying I'd totally deserve it and have it coming if they did. You can't tell me that someone with that much hostility wouldn't take the opportunity every so often to "stick it" to those of us you refer to as evil (I didn't know atheists believed in the concept of "evil"). The OP of this very thread would bar Christians from holding public office. Wonder what other jobs he'd keep us out of.

Also, that you conflate simple criticism with hostility makes it difficult to take this position seriously. Is this sentence hostile or critical: "Refusing to take the threat of climate change seriously because you think that god won't let the world change on us is a dangerous and unfounded position to take."
Click to expand...

Yes, because everything you've ever said about religion and the religious has been nothing but reasoned criticism. Tell me again how delusional and insane I am. It's funny you bring up global warming. I think that's as much of a religion as anything and it's believers sure as hell do want to pass laws enforcing their own morality. For some reason though, that's ok with you.
 
Knowledge=power said:
He in no way favors discrimination.
Click to expand...
"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it." - Sam Harris

He is challenging the religion's radical nature, which is not practiced by all Muslims, but which we have seen practiced to the tune of 9/11. It is just as important that radical Christian practices should be challenged. Criticising any belief system which has the potential for violence should be paramount in public discourse. Religion has been shielded by a false belief that it is not allowed to be challenged. Every area of discourse known to man should be challenged and criticized. Open and honest discussion is the only way to progress as a society.
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with criticizing religion, as I said.

And btw, I know nothing about you, so that first post of yours was very misleading.
Click to expand...
No, my post was clear. You misread it which is fine since we all do that from time to time.
 
I would never vote for an atheist.

However, atheists already have a political party.... the Democratic Party.

I would probably be a Democrat if not for their hostility toward Christians.
 
Amadeus said:
Do you know what the evangelical faith is all about?
Click to expand...

Please tell me. Bah, I'm an evangelical myself, albeit a progressive one, but still counts.

Can't say I'm in the mood for sweeping generalizations, but I'm curious as to what you're going to say. So yes, tell me what evangelicals are all about.

I want to hear this -- well, read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom