Would you vote for an Atheist?

[Inwood]

I really could care less if a candidate worshipped a tree stump in their backyard. As long as their economic, social and political ideas and values mesh with my own, I have no problem voting for an atheist.

Then again, being an atheist myself I suppose I'm adding to Giovanni's supposition.

 

[Críostóir]

Quick reminder here to all posters that this is a NO FLAMES ZONE!

Please adhere to this....

Thanks...

Whoops, sorry. You can delete my comment if you think that would be best.

 

[AsianDream]

I don't know what exactly you are accusing me of, but it's pointless asking an Atheist if he/she would vote for a Atheist, because they would.

I'm asking religious people because most religious people have something against Atheists and I wanted to see if the religious people here was prejudiced to that point.

Atheists saying they would vote for an atheist is just like Catholics saying they would vote for a Catholic, Useless because I knew the answer already. I didn't need atheist input because of this fact..

My point was that you should vote for someone irrespective of their religious convictions - so I would never vote for someone just because they were an athiest nor vote against someone just because they were religious.

 

[AsianDream]

Unless he's convinced he's the only real, orthodox atheist, and the others aren't worthy.

Of the religious people I know and the atheists I know, a far higher portion of atheists are strongly prejudiced against religious people than is true of the reverse.

One distinguishing feature of us Atheists is that is we don’t’ have the concept of the “One true Faith” –

I think your view of highly bigoted and intolerant Atheists verses very liberal and tolerant religious people isn’t how life really is.

But as it’s only anecdotal evidence – maybe you (as a religious person) are very tolerant and the few atheists you know well personally are real ass-holes?

 

[Chalchalero]

One distinguishing feature of us Atheists is that is we don’t’ have the concept of the “One true Faith” –

I think your view of highly bigoted and intolerant Atheists verses very liberal and tolerant religious people isn’t how life really is.

But as it’s only anecdotal evidence – maybe you (as a religious person) are very tolerant and the few atheists you know well personally are real ass-holes?

To your first statement: Atheists have no faith at all, and are generally associated with nontheism, ergo, not only do they not believe in "one true faith", but they are sceptical of any and all faith.

To your last statement: I have only ever met atheists on this forum and they have all been assholes (when dealing with me at least).

 

[sabot3ur]

perhaps you get what you give.

 

[Chalchalero]

perhaps you get what you give.

And I deserved that nasty remark why again???

I do not believe that I have had any dealings with you at all, so I am unaware of what I could possibly have said to you to have deserved such a comment.

 

[Kulindahr]

Since we've drifted off into a side topic....

Just about every atheist I've ever encountered who came out and identified himself as one was arrogant, condescending, and as self-righteous about his own faith (and it is one) as the obnoxious "Have you met Jesus?" types who stepped in front of people on campus in order to "witness". They've been vehemently anti-faith, anti-religion, and almost universally ignorantly so.

It doesn't matter what I've "given"; all it takes is the cross on my neck (I really do need a crucifix that matches my rainbow hexnut choker, btw), or merely using the word "god" to get subjected to the inversion of Fred Phelps -- a harangue he would be proud of, if it were anti-<insert anything Phelps doesn't like> instead of anti-god.

What's odd is that I can't even recall finding out someone was an atheist, in person, except when he/she made like a Kzin, screaming and leaping to the attack against anything that has to do with faith. On JUB, that's still been the case the majority of the time, but it's clearly not universal.

Now, as a religious person, I'm not going to vote for that sort of atheist, but then as a religious person, I'm not going to vote for anyone like Fred Phelps or his female clone, or even for anyone they might approve of -- nor should any real Christian. As Martin Luther forcefully argued long ago, a Christian wants rulers who govern well more than he wants pious rulers; being pious is a secondary consideration.

 

[Críostóir]

OK, we just got into the "Atheism is a faith" thing, which you KNOW is incendiary. And since at least one of the atheists in this thread is, shall we say, not the world's most even-tempered person, you also know what the consequences are likely to be.

Since any useful discussion is about to be consumed in the resulting flamewar, I'm out.

 

[Kulindahr]

OK, we just got into the "Atheism is a faith" thing, which you KNOW is incendiary. And since at least one of the atheists in this thread is, shall we say, not the world's most even-tempered person, you also know what the consequences are likely to be.

Since any useful discussion is about to be consumed in the resulting flamewar, I'm out.

Of course it's a faith, or at least requires faith -- it's a belief that there is no deity of any sort.
Agnosticism isn't a faith, since it makes no claims either way.

Now, the sort of atheist I'd vote for would hear someone state that atheism is a form of faith, and calmly respond, "And your point is....?"

 

[Chalchalero]

Of course it's a faith, or at least requires faith -- it's a belief that there is no deity of any sort.
Agnosticism isn't a faith, since it makes no claims either way.

Now, the sort of atheist I'd vote for would hear someone state that atheism is a form of faith, and calmly respond, "And your point is....?"

I always understood atheism to be a rejection of faith as superstition. Wouldn't they therefore regard ANY faith, i.e. something that could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be against their beliefs just as a matter of course? The fact that there is no God cannot be any more easily proven to believers than the fact that there is a God can be proven to non believers.

 

[ZeroPoint84]

I'm an atheist, and I don't need faith to be so. I have simply seen no reliable evidence as to the existence of a god and so do not believe one exists (or the possibility of one existing is incredibly small). Just as you have seen no reliable evidence of purple unicorns, and so do not believe they exist.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

The only atheists I have known have all been people from the field of science. They don't demonstrate on behalf of atheism, nor do they pursue heated conversations on the subject. They merely lean in favor of a scientific theory of creation rather than a spiritual concept.
Whether an atheist or a person of faith, I would vote for the candidate who has consistently displayed good leadership abilities and similar political (not religious) positions on issues.
He or she can practice whatever religion they want on their time, but it must be separate from the manner in which they govern.
Actually, I would prefer an atheist over a fundamentalist (Christian or Moslem) because I believe they would realize they couldn't force their beliefs on the rest of us. They also wouldn't let their religious beliefs (or lack there of) over shadow the concept of making decisions on logic and not what they perceive their God would want.

 

[Kulindahr]

I always understood atheism to be a rejection of faith as superstition. Wouldn't they therefore regard ANY faith, i.e. something that could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be against their beliefs just as a matter of course? The fact that there is no God cannot be any more easily proven to believers than the fact that there is a God can be proven to non believers.

It's faith that what they can't measure isn't there. Agnosticism is what you're really noting in your last sentence; it admits to not being able to know.

Dragging agnostics into the equation... yes, I'd vote for an atheist, but I'd vote for an equally qualified agnostic first, because the agnostic is more honest.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm an atheist, and I don't need faith to be so. I have simply seen no reliable evidence as to the existence of a god and so do not believe one exists (or the possibility of one existing is incredibly small). Just as you have seen no reliable evidence of purple unicorns, and so do not believe they exist.

Belief is faith. You have here a negative belief: you're believing that a thing is not so -- that's the atheist position, that the proposition that there is some sort of deity isn't so. I suppose not believing in a broader sense of not bothering to believe anything about the subject could be construed as atheism, but I'd call it more properly agnostic. The religious believer and the atheist are two who have bought a product off the metaphysical shelf, so to speak, one labeled "I believe A" and one "I believe not-A".
Some atheists will say they didn't take either product, but that doesn't fit what they're claiming to be: a-theism is a positive assertion that there is no deity, and since there is no proof, a positive assertion is a matter of faith. Someone choosing not to take a product from the belief shelf would need a different tag -- "apistos" would come close, "not-believer", would work.

Do I believe that purple unicorns exist? No, but I have not chosen to proceed on faith and believe positively that they do not exist, which is the position of the atheist regarding deity. While I do no expect to ever encounter a purple unicorn, I would be delighted if I should -- and that shows forth the mark of the real atheist, that he does not hold out the prospect of delight at finding that there really is deity "out there" somewhere. If the proposition is "Purple unicorns exist" (PUE), I neither believe nor disbelieve PUE -- but the position of the a-PUEist would be believing not-PUE.

If you're calling yourself an atheist and defining it differently, fine for you -- just confusing for communication.

 

[Kulindahr]

The only atheists I have known have all been people from the field of science. They don't demonstrate on behalf of atheism, nor do they pursue heated conversations on the subject. They merely lean in favor of a scientific theory of creation rather than a spiritual concept.
Whether an atheist or a person of faith, I would vote for the candidate who has consistently displayed good leadership abilities and similar political (not religious) positions on issues.
He or she can practice whatever religion they want on their time, but it must be separate from the manner in which they govern.
Actually, I would prefer an atheist over a fundamentalist (Christian or Moslem) because I believe they would realize they couldn't force their beliefs on the rest of us. They also wouldn't let their religious beliefs (or lack there of) over shadow the concept of making decisions on logic and not what they perceive their God would want.

While I hammered away at getting my degree in General Science (with forays into not-quite-getting a geology and then a physics degree along the way), I recall very few atheists among the professors. Of the ones who were really very good professors and so stand out in my mind, there was an agnostic who spent summers and sabbaticals at JPL (standard comment: "Insufficient evidence"), a conservative but well-educated Christian (frequent comment, to fundies in his [geology] classes: "Believe what you want, but that's not in the original set of data [by which he meant the meaning of the Hebrew -- he despised "churches" who read things like the age of the earth into Hebrew words and writing that don't even have such as an item of consideration]), a self-designated "protheist" (by which he meant, "I'd love to believe in God, I really would, but I'm waiting for better evidence", a believer in Intelligent Design who got there via physics and chemistry (who in debate rebuked a Christian Creationist for welcoming him as an ally -- a display of common sense that made a major impression on me), a believer in Intelligent Tinkering (her own term) who got there via botany, and then a lot of agnostics and "apistos" types, and lastly a handful who actually called themselves atheist.

BTW, even among the atheists, a good number of my former science profs would call your division between a "scientific" and a "spiritual" creation a false dichotomy. That would be another sort of atheist I could vote for -- one open-minded enough to recognize the intellectual validity of a concept they personally did not believe in (I totally loved my astronomy prof, who didn't believe God sat around shaping Creation as it developed, but could earnestly argue the legitimacy of a view that said He did... and further proceed to argue both sides of the proposition that a Tinkerer who kept poking at the unfolding events was a better or more believable God than one who kicked it all into motion and went off for a beer [a Bavarian stout, of course]).

So the sort of atheist Crio was concerned with is exactly the type I wouldn't vote for: one who runs around saying, "There is no God -- you'd better believe it!" and working to put his believes into policy.

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL

As I posted that last one, I had a mental image of my second college chemistry prof hearing the question this thread addresses, responding, "Please define your terms more precisely".
He used to butcher lab write-ups for imprecision in terminoilogy....

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Of the atheists I have known, the two I know best are a scientist and a doctor.
They believe in more "tangible" things than they do mysticism and most religions incorporate mysticism to some degree.
They believe that if you have cancer or a ruptured appendix, prayer might give you some psychological solace, but those things unless removed will kill you none the less.

 

[ZeroPoint84]

Belief is faith. You have here a negative belief: you're believing that a thing is not so -- that's the atheist position, that the proposition that there is some sort of deity isn't so. I suppose not believing in a broader sense of not bothering to believe anything about the subject could be construed as atheism, but I'd call it more properly agnostic. The religious believer and the atheist are two who have bought a product off the metaphysical shelf, so to speak, one labeled "I believe A" and one "I believe not-A".
Some atheists will say they didn't take either product, but that doesn't fit what they're claiming to be: a-theism is a positive assertion that there is no deity, and since there is no proof, a positive assertion is a matter of faith. Someone choosing not to take a product from the belief shelf would need a different tag -- "apistos" would come close, "not-believer", would work.

Do I believe that purple unicorns exist? No, but I have not chosen to proceed on faith and believe positively that they do not exist, which is the position of the atheist regarding deity. While I do no expect to ever encounter a purple unicorn, I would be delighted if I should -- and that shows forth the mark of the real atheist, that he does not hold out the prospect of delight at finding that there really is deity "out there" somewhere. If the proposition is "Purple unicorns exist" (PUE), I neither believe nor disbelieve PUE -- but the position of the a-PUEist would be believing not-PUE.

If you're calling yourself an atheist and defining it differently, fine for you -- just confusing for communication.

I am an atheist because as I have said there is no evidence for a god (that I have seen), and more to the point, there is more evidence AGAINST a god (certainly any of the gods promoted by the faiths of the world) existing.
There is no faith involved. If there were reliable and verifiable evidence that a god existed, I would have to concede the point, just as if you saw evidence of a purple unicorn you would concede that they exist. But as yet I've not seen anything to convince me.

Richard Dawkins created a scale of belief:

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

He has said there would be very few people who are 7, because we can't ever know that there is no god, just as we cannot ever know for certain there are no purple unicorns, or a teapot floating around in the Andromeda galaxy. All we can say, with reasonable justification, is that it is very unlikely these things don't exist. Dawkins puts himself at 6. That's where I'd put myself as well. And I'd say that is where most people who call themselves "atheists" actually are. So call us agnostics if you will, because technically that's what we are - we don't know whether or not god exists - but the point is we think the probability of a god existing, based on the evidence, is incredibly low. (Also, I think this kind of agnosticism is also called "weak atheism", whereas "strong atheism" is "knowing" there is no god.) Sure there is always the possibility of a god existing, a god who does not and has never interfered with the universe, but that can never be proven or disproven. And I'm not going to mold my life around the possibility of this god existing.

 

[AsianDream]

To your first statement: Atheists have no faith at all, and are generally associated with nontheism, ergo, not only do they not believe in "one true faith", but they are sceptical of any and all faith.

To your last statement: I have only ever met atheists on this forum and they have all been assholes (when dealing with me at least).

I find it hard to believe that Athiests are so rare where you live that you've never ever met one - except on this forum?

Quite a large proportion of the worlds population are Athiests. But I wouldn't give them any particular preference over religious people in who I would vote for.