Would you vote for an Atheist?

[AsianDream]

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.

I'd also put myself as a 6 on this scale - but sometimes I'm nearer 5.

It sure would be nice to live forever and have an all powerful God looking after me - sadly (just like you) I see no evidence of any sort for this.

But I still would only vote for someone on rational grounds - whatever their religious belief or lack of it. Obviously I would think twice about voting for someone that was involved with an overtly homophobic religion - in case they wanted to translate these ideas into laws that would hurt me and those I know.

 

[ZeroPoint84]

I wouldn't vote for an atheist JUST because they're an atheist, of course it would depend on their policies and the policies of their opponents.

However, I don't think I could ever vote for a Creationist. This is because, by believing what they do, they are ignoring mountains of evidence opposing their belief, and are choosing to believe something purely because it fits in with their faith. This person is clearly not capable of rational and critical thinking - something that is of critical importance in someone who is going to rule a country, who will have to respond to emergencies, who will have decide what to do based on facts that may go against what they believe in.

 

[AsianDream]

I wouldn't vote for an atheist JUST because they're an atheist, of course it would depend on their policies and the policies of their opponents.

However, I don't think I could ever vote for a Creationist. This is because, by believing what they do, they are ignoring mountains of evidence opposing their belief, and are choosing to believe something purely because it fits in with their faith. This person is clearly not capable of rational and critical thinking - something that is of critical importance in someone who is going to rule a country, who will have to respond to emergencies, who will have decide what to do based on facts that may go against what they believe in.

I would vote for a Creationist (Inteligent Design etc) believer if their policies were those I agreed with.

I suspect that both current presidential candidates have creationist type views - which is one reason I thought Hillary would be a better choice than either of them.

But it still wouldn't be a decisive factor.

I guess the winner this time will be the one that promises the lowest Gas prices - plus the biggest bail out of the US housing price bubble.

 

[ZeroPoint84]

Well, both of them SAY they have creationist type views As we know,that is unfortunately the way to winning a lot of votes. Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, it is difficult to know as someone outside of America, but Obama at least seems intelligent.

 

[AsianDream]

Well, both of them SAY they have creationist type views As we know,that is unfortunately the way to winning a lot of votes. Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, it is difficult to know as someone outside of America, but Obama at least seems intelligent.

I'm worried about either of them - Obama will probably win - he's a great speaker - but so was Lloyd George (and look what a fuck up he made!).

I'm sort of warming to McCain - but (like you) I don't have a vote (nor live in the few "swing states" that will actually decide the US presidential election).

I would still hope that people will look at a candidates policies and character - rather than their religious beliefs.

 

[beafous]

YES YES YES I would. Actually I would love there to be an atheist candidate, but that could never work. My perfect candidate could never get elected.

 

[AsianDream]

YES YES YES I would. Actually I would love there to be an atheist candidate, but that could never work. My perfect candidate could never get elected.

Maybe an atheist candidate will become President of the USA one day.

After all - the idea of either a Black or Female US president would have sounded like a joke 40 years ago

 

[beafous]

This is very true and I hope it will come to pass. I'm sick of religion being an issue in politics.

 

[Ryuukie]

It's a very interesting question. Here's my answer: No!

 

[AsianDream]

It's a very interesting question. Here's my answer: No!

I'm not sure your response qualifies as a well argued and articulate response to this thread -

But I do think there is a lot of unfair prejudice against ignorant rednecks -

So I do think it is good that you have taken the chance to put forward a reasoned argument in support of your ideas - clearly I'm a bit sad that this only consists of saying "NO" to the question "Would you vote for an Atheist?". But no doubt you have valid reasons for holding this view - even if you are not capable of saying what these are.

But I do accept that these forums should not descriminate against those with limited mental ability nor those that are in other ways mentally challenged.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I would vote for an atheist who believes in the constitution over a "religious" person who thinks the constitution comes second to their faith.

 

[FrodoTX]

YES!!!!!!!!!!! You mean someone who actually who do what is right for the country without the religious overtones? We can only hope

 

[954dude]

I would. I accept all faiths, or the lack of it. As long as the person shows promise and fulfills their duty as a leader, there should be nothing wrong with it. Their belief is irrelevant as president, vice president, governor, or whatever.

 

[Jory]

Depends what's their platform?

 

[AsianDream]

I absolutely would not. I would easily vote for someone with no religion but they would have to view God as the creator and seek God's guidance in leading their life and the nation to get my vote.

DUH - is it likely that an Athiest (someone with no religion) would view God as the creator and seek his/her God's guidance in leading their life?

So you are saying you would vote for someone with no religion - provided they believed in God?

For me the only thing your statement gives is some insight into the logical and moral integrity of "Religious Right" views - (ie: almost none at al)l.

For anyone that can't see the logical contradiction in the view you express - maybe someone stating they would vote for someone of any religion - provided they had no belief in God would make sense as well?

The more scary thing is that are actually quire a lot of people who see nothing strange or illogical in the views you express - I guess this is the deep pool of intolerance and ignorance on which ideas like creationism feed

 

[hotatlboi]

Not voting for someone because they are an athiest is akin to not voting for them because their favorite color is not red imo. What someone's personal religious beliefs are should have no bearing at all on how well they would uphold the Constitution (what the Presidential oath of office entails). The Constitution is a secular document, and the USA was founded as and is a secular nation whether the religious folk here want to recognize that or not.

 

[AsianDream]

How many people in this very forum have commented they accept God into their life but are not part of a mainstream organized religion. Many people meditate, do yoga or pray on their own with no affiliation to any religion. Think before you hit "submit reply". In trying to act like a know-it-all you came across like a retard . I'm assuming they have free primary education in Hong Kong so please don't embarass yourself any further with DUHs and lectures about logic.

So you would vote for an Atheist - provided they believed in God? - FYI - doing Yoga doesn't imply a belief in God.

I do think some points raised do merit a discussion of basic logic - I would not presume to comment on the amount of education you have had - or if this was free or otherwise.

Though I am glad the USA is now going to get a President who can string more than two words together coherently - again I don't know your political affiliations - but I have my suspicions.

However the arguments you make are very seriously flawed - as well as showing a level of religious intolerance that few people these days would accept as either reasonable or healthy.

BTW - it is not very polite to call someone a "Retard" - it does not concern me - but you seem to make the implicit assumtion that human beings with any form of impairment (mental or physical) are somehow inferior and less worthy of respect

 

[hotatlboi]

However the arguments you make are very seriously flawed

That's a common theme with him, especially in the political section, lol.

 

[ronboy]

Gentlemen....

A gentle reminder from me that this is a NO FLAMES zone....

Disagree if you will....however, personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Please keep the discourse on a civil level.

Thank you.......

 

[AsianDream]

Logic is not as paramount as you think. It is also not nice to say "DUH" to someone either. You should not condescend if you don't want the same rudeness thrown back at you. By retard I meant the slang not the literal meaning. I would never attack a person for being mentally challenged. If you are mentally challenged I apologize as I only meant to spit your rudeness back at you. I would also state that your arguments are greatly flawed. However, getting you to agree with me is not my purpose in being here. After reading some of your posts I'd be quite concerned if you did agree with me. FYI, most people who seriously practice Yoga also subscribe or at least study the related eastern spiritual philosophy. One does not need a church or religion to have a connection to God. I'm srry if that concept is non-processable by your logic. Perhaps thinking less like a computer would benefit you.

Who the USA elects president and whether or not a president must speak in linear style is of no relevance to this thread. I don't see your logic in bringing it up here.

My “DUH” comment was purely directed at the logical inconsistency of your argument and was certainly not intended to be in any way personally derogatory.

There is a clear problem with the idea that you would vote for an Athiest as long as he/she believes in God.

It’s obvious that neither of us are mentally challenged – so asserting that the other person is a “retard” is not conducive to a rational discussion. It is also one where the moderators may (quite rightly) decide our discussion has descended into the realm of personal “Flames” and insults – and should be deleted.

However I am aware that I am conducting a discussion in a secondary language for me – so while it seems that many native English speakers have a poor grasp of their own language – I would ask you to bear with me (and also consider how well you would be able to conduct this type of discussion in Chinese?).

Logic is in reality totally paramount – it is the only way in which those with disparate ideas can actually communicate.

I clearly Would vote for an Atheist – and I don’t think you have given any rational or compelling argument for basing Voting decisions on the religious affiliations (or otherwise) of the candidates