• 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!

Would you vote for an Atheist?

Would you vote for or consider voting for an Atheist for any public office?

  • Yes

    Votes: 62 89.9%
  • No

    Votes: 7 10.1%

  • Total voters
    69


God gives us our rights. WHERE DID GOD PUBLISH THESE RIGHTS? You've been subjected to too much John Locke.

He didn’t have to publish them. As Jefferson said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. JEFFERSON WAS A HUMAN BEING who never claimed to have met god and was given these things directly/or indirectly from god. Sounds very poetic...but no more potent than that. He too read John Locke. In other words, Jefferson wasn't Moses. He didn't go up on a mountain and come back down with the Declaration of Independence after having a chat with god.

Ask Lennin, Marx or Obama. They’ve all laid-out their plans on how to do that very thing. NONSENSE

Point of fact, the Declaration establishes this country and does so based on the reasoning that we all have “certain unalienable rights”. NONSENSE The D.I. put King George on notice that the people in the colonies would no longer be subjected to his rule and abuse...and outlined his discretions very plainly.

Yea, I noticed.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t seem to have any trouble understanding who the Creator was. Why do you? Myths, superstitions, and ancient imaginary gods have been around a long time...so what? I don't subscribe to such.



And yet the reason they were placed there was to protect the individual from his government. As such, you may wish to re-think that whole “but I won't go as far to say that they are inalienable” position.

Well, as an atheist...you might well suspect that I'm going to respond with: Your beliefs are just that, YOUR BELIEFS. In relationship to the history of our government and laws of the land, which have been created by our governments....you're way off the grid with your claims.

OH...and how does an atheist strip away these god given rights that you claim exists
 
OH...and how does an atheist strip away these god given rights that you claim exists

And that's the thing, they are just claims, no more valid because they have blind faith than any other unsupported claim. It's funny that the only "evidence" theists can put forward for their beliefs is their own gullibility. And then they expect everyone else to be gullible too.
 
I wouldn't know. They're all dead.

Yet the Judeo / Christian belief system has been around for thousands of years and were still here so, go figure?

Zeus had been around for some time too. No religion has yet proven itself infinitely stable; not even Christianity which has evolved and fractured over the centuries. No religion has shown itself immutable.
 
Really? Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible?



I don't have to prove any such thing. All I have to do is point to what the Founders thought and point to the wisdom that we all best believe in God given rights as all other may be taken away by the whim of the state.

Not all the founders were religious, and often times for the period religion was evoked for propaganda purposes. If gods were so important they would have been in the contract that established the government; the Constitution. Yet they are not.
 
Nope you made the claim in this thread and it is pure 100% BS

Actually I said atheists are not fit to hold office--not that they are less moral.

Difference.

You should learn what you're talking about before calling "BS".
 
Actually I said atheists are not fit to hold office--not that they are less moral.

Difference.

You should learn what you're talking about before calling "BS".

lol you said they were not fit to hold office and spewed some BS (and that is what it was pure BS) about inalienable rights coming from god.
Now first off unless you can prove there is a god your claim of any rights coming from god are total bunk.
if somehow you can prove god exists after everyone else in history has failed you would then have to prove these god given rights.
since you cannot but fail on the first point I call 100% BS on you.
prove me wrong, prove your god exists or accept your fail

*edit* I would say that someone who thinks like you is totally unfit for any elected office
 
Life, liberty, and property form the basis of natural rights. Property is expanded not only to the physical form but to privacy (all privacy rights stem from property). They exist as they exist, these are abstract concepts born of intellect and empathy and we can understand that at heart all humans are human and because we are all fundamentally the same there are limits to force you can apply to me even if you hold monopoly of force. We are not protected by rights, we need to protect rights. Enforcement is mostly done through proper construct of government and law, and on extremes at the end of a gun.

Ikari..I'm not trying to be a nuisance or arrogant about this, but "Natural Rights"...I can't buy. "Legal and/or Constitutional rights"...I can.

Here is the only place we'll find "Life, Liberty, and Property" in our Constitution:

Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


and

AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


John Locke published those things as "god given rights". Jefferson and Madison both read "Second Treatise of Governments" so you'll find a number of great points of wisdom and good common sense, which some of those things were incorporated in but the D.I. and Constitution. But that's where it ends.

Yes... Jefferson used Locke's quote, but it was a revision and came out as "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" when writing the Declaration of Independence... but he was far from the prince of religion, and written in a way of getting King Georges attention regarding the abusive power he used on American colonists. So he used some "flowery language"...very poetic. But this wasn't a message from god to Jefferson to give to King George.

Sectarian factions have tried like hell to make Jefferson's wording in the D.I. just that.


As an atheist...I just don't understand the meaning of natural rights. As a citizen...I can only see Life, Liberty, and Property as being rights described as part of "Due Process"....that's it. No Mas...

I guess I'm being over the top with this reply for one reason and one reason only...TO STRIP AWAY GOD-GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS, which theist so love to believe that they have. NONSENSE!

Respectfully....And Thanks...
 
Not all the founders were religious, and often times for the period religion was evoked for propaganda purposes.

They were all religious though some had some different ideas regarding religion. Franklin is often seen as the most irreligous (according to some) and yet here is a quote from him:

"We have arrived, Mr. President . . . at a very momentous and interesting crisis in our deliberations. Hitherto our views have been as harmonious, and our progress as great as could reasonably have been expected. But now an unlooked for and formidable obstacle is thrown in our way, which threatens to arrest our course, and, if not skillfully removed, to render all our fond hopes of a constitution abortive.

It is, however, to be feared that the members of this Convention are not in a temper, at this moment, to approach the subject in which we differ, in this spirit. I would, therefore, propose, Mr. President, that, without proceeding further in this business at this time, the Convention shall adjourn for three days, in order to let the present ferment pass off, and to afford time for a more full, free, and dispassionate investigation of the subject; and I would earnestly recommend to the members of this Convention, that they spend the time of this recess, not in associating with their own party, and devising new arguments to fortify themselves in their old opinions, but that they mix with members of opposite sentiments, lend a patient ear to their reasonings, and candidly allow them all the weight to which they may be entitled; and when we assemble again, I hope it will be with a determination to form a constitution, if not such an one as we can individually, and in all respects, approve, yet the best, which, under existing circumstances, can be obtained.

(Here the countenance of Washington brightened, and a cheering ray seemed to break in upon the gloom which had recently covered our political horizon.) The doctor continued:

Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!

The doctor sat down, and never did I [General Dayton] behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of the address! Nor were the members of the Convention, generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate! A silent admiration superseded, for a moment, the expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every countenance."



If gods were so important they would have been in the contract that established the government; the Constitution. Yet they are not.

Gods would have been in the contract that...what?!

Try again.
 
Ikari..I'm not trying to be a nuisance or arrogant about this, but "Natural Rights"...I can't buy. "Legal and/or Constitutional rights"...I can.

Here is the only place we'll find "Life, Liberty, and Property" in our Constitution:

Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


and

AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


John Locke published those things as "god given rights". Jefferson and Madison both read "Second Treatise of Governments" so you'll find a number of great points of wisdom and good common sense, which some of those things were incorporated in but the D.I. and Constitution. But that's where it ends.

Yes... Jefferson used Locke's quote, but it was a revision and came out as "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" when writing the Declaration of Independence... but he was far from the prince of religion, and written in a way of getting King Georges attention regarding the abusive power he used on American colonists. So he used some "flowery language"...very poetic. But this wasn't a message from god to Jefferson to give to King George.

Sectarian factions have tried like hell to make Jefferson's wording in the D.I. just that.


As an atheist...I just don't understand the meaning of natural rights. As a citizen...I can only see Life, Liberty, and Property as being rights described as part of "Due Process"....that's it. No Mas...

I guess I'm being over the top with this reply for one reason and one reason only...TO STRIP AWAY GOD-GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS, which theist so love to believe that they have. NONSENSE!

Respectfully....And Thanks...

Natural rights can be understood by atheists as base equality of humanity. Kant himself argues that natural rights derive from intelligence.
 
Gods would have been in the contract that...what?!

Try again.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

The contract that actually establishes the government and laid out its powers and privileges along with a select sampling of our rights. That's called the Constitution. When you can find mention of your god there, let me know.
 
lol you said they were not fit to hold office and spewed some BS (and that is what it was pure BS) about inalienable rights coming from god.
Now first off unless you can prove there is a god your claim of any rights coming from god are total bunk.
if somehow you can prove god exists after everyone else in history has failed you would then have to prove these god given rights.
since you cannot but fail on the first point I call 100% BS on you.
prove me wrong, prove your god exists or accept your fail

*edit* I would say that someone who thinks like you is totally unfit for any elected office

Sorry but you've wasted my time and I don't waste my time with people who can't post intelligently and maturely.
 
The contract that actually establishes the government and laid out its powers and privileges along with a select sampling of our rights. That's called the Constitution. When you can find mention of your god there, let me know.

The Constitution defines our governmnet--not our country. Our country was founded by the Declaration of Independence and it does mention both God and a "sampling of our rights".
 
Natural rights can be understood by atheists as base equality of humanity. Kant himself argues that natural rights derive from intelligence.


Where does it exist? There is no such thing as EQUALITY of HUMANITY...there's just no evidence of that.

Natural right from intelligence translates into? How does that apply to all human beings? Intelligences isn't at all equal among humanity. If it was the world wouldn't probably be in the mess it's in.
 
the constitution defines our governmnet--not our country. Our country was founded by the declaration of independence and it does mention both god and a "sampling of our rights".

nonsense...
 
nonsense...

Really!

Is the document that founds our country and declares our independence not the Declaration of Independence?

Does it not mention God?

Does it not mention our "unalienable rights"?

Does the Constitution not define our govenment and it's limitations?

Wow.
 
Where does it exist? There is no such thing as EQUALITY of HUMANITY...there's just no evidence of that.

What is liberty? What is love? What is morality? Do these things exist? The entire world of knowledge is not sole property of concrete concept, abstract formalization exist to. There is such a thing as equality of humanity for at base we are all the same, and we are all the same then there is a point at which you can no longer enact force against my person; and that is what a right is. The limitation of force against an individual for to do so goes against the dignity and worth of humans.

Rights and morals are product of intelligence and empathy; both inherent processes to humankind. The loftiest of kings and the lowliest of peasant are at base still human.

Natural right from intelligence translates into? How does that apply to all human beings? Intelligences isn't at all equal among humanity. If it was the world wouldn't probably be in the mess it's in.

True humans on whole can act rather irrationally; but that doesn't make us not human. Natural rights from intelligence translates into the understanding of limited force against an individual.
 
The Constitution defines our governmnet--not our country. Our country was founded by the Declaration of Independence and it does mention both God and a "sampling of our rights".

No, the DI was a propaganda piece to excuse revolution against the King but to stymie any argument that could be used against the fledgling nation. The Constitution is where theory hits reality.
 
What is liberty? What is love? What is morality? Do these things exist? The entire world of knowledge is not sole property of concrete concept, abstract formalization exist to. There is such a thing as equality of humanity for at base we are all the same, and we are all the same then there is a point at which you can no longer enact force against my person; and that is what a right is. The limitation of force against an individual for to do so goes against the dignity and worth of humans.

Rights and morals are product of intelligence and empathy; both inherent processes to humankind. The loftiest of kings and the lowliest of peasant are at base still human.



True humans on whole can act rather irrationally; but that doesn't make us not human. Natural rights from intelligence translates into the understanding of limited force against an individual.

Ikari, gosh...what can I say. Alrighty then...not sure we're from the same country...or world. Sorry, it's all very nice. But that's not how I see the world work, much less our nation.

Might as well hang with Baron on this one. Might be easier to grasp "god-given"....
 
Sorry but you've wasted my time and I don't waste my time with people who can't post intelligently and maturely.

I am not the one posting nonsense
 
No, the DI was a propaganda piece to excuse revolution against the King but to stymie any argument that could be used against the fledgling nation. The Constitution is where theory hits reality.


Well, ****...at least we agree on this. Better than a sharp stick in the eye as they say.
 
how about a "she"? :)

I have existed a lot longer than political correctness and the perverbial He actually at one time could cover both sexes. There was none of this his/hers or he/she. He included all. I am too darn old to change now. what I said applies to one and all. Even a she/he...
 
Ikari, gosh...what can I say. Alrighty then...not sure we're from the same country...or world. Sorry, it's all very nice. But that's not how I see the world work, much less our nation.

Might as well hang with Baron on this one. Might be easier to grasp "god-given"....

Perhaps not, I've read a lot of philosophy on the matter and in the end I cannot see humans for anything more than humans. You don't have the right to take my life, it innate to my humanity. No matter how much money or power or guns you have, without provocation you cannot justly kill me. That limitation of force is due to my innate right to life. Born from the fact that we are all the same, all humans are human and human life has intrinsic value, worth, and decency. Perhaps it's a concept some do not wish to consider or acknowledge, but it makes it no less the truth.
 
Would you vote for or consider voting for an Atheist for any public office?
I would.

However, nobody knows who is and is not an atheist in the first place. (except for those mental cases who think they can telepathically read other peoples' minds)
 
Yet it was Sir Edward Coke that defined the term in the 1500 / 1600's, Blackstone utilized the term in his writings and Jefferson studied Blackstone. Jefferson understood the meaning of the term natural law to mean God's law. You have to redefine the word to make it fit your argument.
No, I used logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom