1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Would you vote for an Atheist?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by stOx, Feb 8, 2008.

?

Would you vote for an Atheist?

  1. Yes

    48 vote(s)
    72.7%
  2. No

    18 vote(s)
    27.3%
  1. #1
    If your favorite candidate "came out" as an atheist would it make you change your vote?
     
    stOx, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  2. BoBByCooL

    BoBByCooL Peon

    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    Darn right I would vote for an Atheist. I don't really care what religion a politician is, it's how you think they will do the job that matters.

    Religious people can be just as corrupt as anyone else. Sometimes religious people get away with it because they use their religion as an excuse.

    PS> I'm not an Atheist, I'm agnostic
     
    BoBByCooL, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  3. allout

    allout Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    461
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    340
    #3
    I agree, a person religious affliction should have nothing to do with it. It is more important that they can do the job and that they have the respect of the people. I have met many atheist who are way more moral than so called Christians. I am also agnostic not atheist .
     
    allout, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  4. Rub3X

    Rub3X Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    75
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #4
    Anyone who voted no is an intolerance bigot. Simple as that. Can't ban for facts. I'd gladly vote for Paul and he's a religious fundie. Doesn't matter if it's not in his politics. Voting based on religion is pure ignorance.
     
    Rub3X, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  5. Toopac

    Toopac Peon

    Messages:
    4,451
    Likes Received:
    166
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Yes, in fact it is not important to me what religion a person is from.
     
    Toopac, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  6. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #6
    I could depending on his stance, I sure wouldn't vote for someone who is ignorant, bigoted and hates Christians, we don't need a hitler in charge.

    An athiest who isn't an extremist like the OP would be fine, extremism will lead to death.
     
    debunked, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  7. davewashere

    davewashere Active Member

    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    33
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #7
    Absolutely. I believe an Atheist is just as capable of making moral decisions for our country as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or member of any other faith. If the past few years have taught us anything, it's that even those who are leaders of a particular faith can be immoral in ways most people couldn't imagine (the Catholic priest boy-toy scandal, Evangelical leader Ted Haggard and the meth dealer/gay hooker scandal, etc).
     
    davewashere, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  8. iul

    iul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    46
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #8
    I would actually having atheists as leaders in my country. I mean if a person believes the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs lived the same time as humans then who knows what that person might believe. I think atheists are generally more logical persons
     
    iul, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  9. PHPGator

    PHPGator Banned

    Messages:
    4,437
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #9
    Your religion and personal beliefs will have impacts on your decision making. I'm going to vote for whoever it is that has the closest beliefs as I. Therefore, no, I would not vote for an athiest.
     
    PHPGator, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  10. cientificoloco

    cientificoloco Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #10
    so you think GWB (for example) is a better president than any well-prepared person who doesn't care whether there is a god or not?
     
    cientificoloco, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  11. humanedited

    humanedited Peon

    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    I'd vote for an atheist before any anyone who pushes their faith in their political campaign and drops a lot of "god bless this country" in their speeches.
     
    humanedited, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  12. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    I try not to let religion come into play when thinking about a candidate but I must say I'm turned off by candidates who are overly religious as I feel that's a sign of a lack of rational thought (or more likely, of pandering to a religious group)

    I'd love to vote for an openly atheist candidate, unfortunately the political climate here in America won't allow anyone who is openly atheist to have a shot in hell of winning. So I think even if a candidate is an atheist, he'd probably keep it under wraps.
     
    Zibblu, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  13. KalvinB

    KalvinB Peon

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    I wouldn't. Our constitution is based on the idea that our rights are given to us by a higher power. Atheists believe in no such power and therefore that our rights are given to us by men. And since men gave them to us, men can take them away. Belief in a higher power is also a humbling thing. You can see what happens to athiests who get into power. They think they're the most powerful thing in the universe and before you know it 100's of millions are slaughtered all over the world in less than 100 years for challenging "their" authority.

    A Christian leader knows that their authority comes from God.

    It tooks thousands of years for religious zealots to reach even a fraction of what athiests did in the 20th century.

    A president needs to have a strong moral foundation.

    A Christian leader can be corrected by reminding him of what the Bible says. An atheist's moral stance is purely subjective.

    So no, I would never vote for an atheist. Atheist leaders have historically worked to suppress religion. You can see it at work in the US today. Recently a public school denied a student the ability to announce a prayer meeting because the announcement had the word "prayer." You can go back to ancient rome to see what happened to Christians.

    I wouldn't trust an atheist president to be any better than those school officials.

    Gravel was an anti-religion zealot and I'm glad he's out of the race. We don't need idiots like that in office. The very first right in the constitution regards religious freedom.
     
    KalvinB, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  14. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Mike Gravel is a genius. And no, he's not out of the race. Not surprising given the rest of what you said that you would be ignorant of that fact. He has never dropped out. He was just never given a chance by the media in the first place.

    Mike Gravel is far more morally grounded than George W. Bush who claims to talk to God. Gravel doesn't want any innocent folks killed. That doesn't seem to be very high on ol' W's priority list.

    I really have to remember: I must not click "view post" on ignored folks, they are ignored for a reason.
     
    Zibblu, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  15. KalvinB

    KalvinB Peon

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Yes, that's it. It has nothing to do with his lack of a message that anyone cares about.

    Are you seriously trying to convince us all that Gravel is the only candidate with a nose? If that's his platform then no wonder the media ignored him. Why would they bother putting on a candidate who is trying to sell themselves on the fact they have limbs?

    I must have missed the debate where the candidates were discussing how many innocent people they wanted to kill and Mike Gravel nobely stood against them and said he would kill "none." That must have been a sight to see.

    You probably shouldn't view the post of someone who isn't shy to point out the fact that atheists murdered more people in the 20th century by magnitudes than were killed in all of history by religious people.
     
    KalvinB, Feb 8, 2008 IP
  16. eXe

    eXe Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,643
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    285
    #16
    I would, probably because I'm an atheist myself. I don't agree with the sidelining of religious views from politics as religious views tend to have a major influence on the mindsets of people, especially the religious.

    Most religions including Christianity are based upon the principles of suspending reasoning & "believing" in things blindly (things which are poorly supported by historical or scientific facts). It is in the best interests of humanity to be anti-religious (not necessarily anti-theistic). In fact, subscribing to an absolute standard of morality (as you said in your post: "A Christian leader can be corrected by reminding him of what the Bible says") is very bigoted. Morality is in no way related to one's ability to stop reasoning & irrationally accept dictums & dogma to be valid. Quite the converse actually.
     
    eXe, Feb 9, 2008 IP
    iul likes this.
  17. KalvinB

    KalvinB Peon

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    There you go.

    Exactly why an atheist should never rule. They can justify murdering 100+ million people in less than 100 years because believing that murder is wrong is bigoted.

    By your admission, claiming that what Hitler/Stalin/Mao/etc did was wrong is bigoted because that would require some subjective standard for morality.

    You want to judge Christians for the crusades but refuse to be judged yourself because you refuse to adhere to any sort of moral standard. What sane person would put someone in charge who has no basis for morality? And on top of that, claims bigotry when called to the carpet for say murdering a few million people just because they are not atheist.

    If there is no basis for morality and it's bigoted to judge someone by any standard of morality then there can be no court system. There can be no crimes.
     
    KalvinB, Feb 9, 2008 IP
  18. wisdomtool

    wisdomtool Moderator Staff

    Messages:
    15,825
    Likes Received:
    1,367
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #18
    I would vote for his stance on issues, his character and not on his religion.
     
    wisdomtool, Feb 9, 2008 IP
  19. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #19
    Kalvin has it entirely escaped you that your CHRISTIAN president is responsible for over 1,000,000 iraqi deaths in the last 4 years?.... So don't give us this morality shit.
     
    stOx, Feb 9, 2008 IP
  20. KalvinB

    KalvinB Peon

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    Besides the fact that the number you quote has been shown to be ludicrous (685 deaths per day for 4 years straight?)...

    The US Government is not targeting civilians. Killing murderers is the government's job. It is the moral thing to do. Unfortantly innocent people get caught up in the fight because the murderers over in Iraq are hiding in the civilian population.

    It would only make the government immoral if it was intentionally targeting civilians. Accidently killing civilians is unfortunate. It is only immoral if you think it's okay. Last I checked the US Government didn't like killing civilans either.

    Again, another fine example of what happens when you have no moral foundation. You can't tell the enemy from the good guys. You can't have someone like that leading the world's most powerful army now can you?

    What atheist leader has only killed the bad guys in a large war without causing the death of a single innocent civilian?

    Right, with no moral foundation, an atheist leader would see no reason to stop Hitler/Stalin/Mao and inaction to stop the killing of say Jews, is not considered immoral from an atheist standpoint. After all, that would be bigotry. Doing nothing is moral because no one is in danger of getting hurt by you. Doing something is "wrong" because "innocent" people could get killed by you, the "good" guy. Those are moral terms so they mean nothing. That's why they're in quotes.
     
    KalvinB, Feb 9, 2008 IP