Would you vote for an Atheist?

[JustMe891]

Simple question really I'm asking religious people only. I thought it would be interesting to ask.

Vote for the Atheist every time.

 

[WillMc88]

If the only thing I knew about two candidates was that one was an atheist and one was a theist, I'd vote for the atheist.

But that situation would never happen, so it would depend on other factors as well.

 

[Ambrocious]

A person who is likely to stick with an idea of goodness that i known to bring more great things is more likely to succeed rather than the ever changing views on things and people and ideas which constantly rattle around and always change the moral standing of the people.

Structure comes from conformity to set laws and rules where as a person who believes in no deity is often allowed to reform anything and everything in an attempt to do good but failing as they lack the understanding of what a firm foundation is: an unchanging thing.

Imperfection ALWAYS changes, this is how we can see what is imperfect and flawed. Perfection is rarely seen if ever simply because it has remained the same by a lack of need to change because once perfect, there is no NEED to change. The idea that a perfect thing should change to conform to modernization of society is usually motivated by the "here and the now" and is most often a temporary idea that lacks a wisdom and knowledge of life it's self.

The idea of believing in no god or higher source is usually turned into a selfish onslaught once he realizes that power is what he desires. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and so knowing this fact, whoever goes about to gain power of the lives of people must have in mind a flawed view which is self taught and ever changing. Power of people is a goal of all people who lack wisdom because with the power you hold, if not used to help those who you control, you will see to your own death as they will eventually realize that they have no power and that you will be the perpetrator.

Whats worse than a leader with no belief in a god or deity? A person who PROFESSES to believe in one and yet does everything AGAINST the direct will of his said god. Worse than this is the man who would call himself God...in this day we will only survive as slaves.

 

[DonQuixote]

Back to the ORIGINAL topic, if I may -- I consider myself fairly religious, but not a Fanatic Fundamentalist Farakahnesque.

Would I vote for an Atheist - I'd have to know a lot about them and their personal convictions.

It's a lot easier to vote for someone who professes "a faith in God" because that means they allegedly have some moral convictions that are likely to mesh with mine.

I do not want a person "to govern to convert all to their faith". However, our laws ARE based on common morality -- some of which I understand may run afoul of some people here. BUT, having A moral conviction is a good thing, by and large. An atheist would have to demonstrate a belief in a socially and fiscally responsible plan of attack.

That's much easier to do when you have demonstrated and activeness of some sort in your church.

So, Not an overly religious bent, but a conviction based in a firm foundation of faith.

 

[DonQuixote]

If a politician being religious plays a role in getting a person's vote, shouldn't these people be somewhat scared or at least worried that said politician is just playing up his or her religion to come across as some sort of political embodiment of good moral standards and use this to get votes?

I, personally, would have more problems voting for a religious person, based on the suspicion that they are trying to take advantage of their religion to get ahead politically. Well, that and I have trouble trusting religious people in general in politics. Don't like them, who knows what they're going to get up to once they get to a position of power. Give me a rationally thinking atheist any day, preferably a scientist of some kind. (This is purely a feeling though, I do realise not all atheists think rationally, but if a person, any person, can't think rationally I'd like to think this would come out while they are being scrutinised by their fellow politicians and the media)

Over here, we vote more based on party views though, and that is kepping my vote firmly with parties that portray themselves as non-religious. If you have to have the word 'christian' in your party's name, to me, that is guaranteed trouble in the future for the rest of us. But then, I'd have less trouble (or perhaps close to no trouble) voting for a muslim/christian/hindu etc. who was part of a party of which I like the views, because I know the party platform will be upheld (at least to a large extent), and they will be kept in check by their party.

I was afraid my take might be misinterpreted. I am NOT in support of those who wave their religion around, or wear it on their sleeves. I recognize Snake Oil Salesmen when I see them.

Rather, I mean someone who has quietly made it evident that they have a belief in God, simple statement, but don't let partisan religiosity take a role in day to day governance. Faith in God and Religious Radical are two very different things.

I, too, would like someone with a good, solid background in Engineering or the Sciences - it might surprise you to know that MOST scientists believe in God, just as they embrace Darwin and Evolution. They are not a paradox, though many seem to think they are.

The Party Platform is also a big item over here. Unfortunately, the vocal minority on the fringes often commandeer enought clout within the parties to make it a twisted gangplank. In their zeal to differentiate Party A from B, they go to the extremes, instead of trying to look at things rationally, reasonably.

I suspect we are much closer to in agreement on our mindsets than apart. MOST people who have a belief in God are also rational, thinking beings, not sheep following the prostheletizers blindly.

 

[bankside]

I think the idea that Atheists have to be scrutinized more carefully because they might be found lacking in morals compared to someone who does nothing different other than believe in god amounts to just old-fashioned prejudice.

 

[poolerboy]

Atheism is a Religion in and of itself because of its belief system, just like any other religion in the World. This is the last post I'm making in this forum.

That would be like calling bald a hair color or not collecting stamps a hobby.

 

[DonQuixote]

Icarus,
I agree, this thread can certainly help with the blood circulation.

I'm surprised to hear that expressing views on religion in the Netherlands can be so closely scrutinized - I thought you had one of the most progressive/open thinking cultures/countries on the planet.

Guess a little information on openness in one area, does not necessarily translate to openness and tolerance in all areas.


Mikey - It's not prejudicial with respect to the atheists, it's not knowing where they stand or what their moral standing is at all. It could be construed as being pro-prejudicial towards the candidates who have quietly demonstrated a belief in God as having already passed a litmus test of general mores.

I don't mean to slight any candidate. As I mentioned, I am not in favour of fervent Religious Holy Rollers, because they are too radical in their approach, and may well be a Snake Oil Salesman. With an individual self-proclaimed atheist, barring any other information about the candidate, I would be reluctant to support blindly. I don't know anything about them, other than a professed non-belief in God.

Let me know more about the person.
It may not be fair, but the quiet professor/demonstrator of a faith in God has already given me a core of information to start with that, in general terms, meshes with my ideologies.

I am Roman Catholic, but I am pro-Choice, though I pray to God that the Choice is life/adoption whenever possible - both for the prospective mother's mental health - Debbie Roe of Roe v. Wade Supreme Court fame has come forth publicly, a lifetime later, stating that the decision was a difficult one, and completing the abortion had a profound impact on her - negative to her mental health/outlook of herself.

I would not deny a woman the choice, because that would just bring back the coat hanger back alley abortions of the past the maimed or killed too many women. That doesn't mean that I would pray they got calm, cool, rational counselling trying to help them decide to carry to term and either keep or put up for adoption - again, as much for them as for the unborn child.

I also firmly believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, and sanctified within the institution of the Church. I recognize the 80:20 rule that is so prevalent in God's natural order. I firmly believe that, while Not "the norm", bisexuality and homosexuality do fall within the second or third standard deviation of sexual attraction/behaviour so as to be "normal" - i.e. the "Exceptions that prove the Rule."

 

[AsianDream]

That would be like calling bald a hair color or not collecting stamps a hobby.

The original question "Would you vote for an Atheist?" reflects the peculiar USA view that religious belief is a good thing.

I'd prefer to recast this as "Would you vote for someone that wasn't an Atheist?"

While I'd view any sort of religious belief as a delusion - I don't think this should prevent me voting for someone that was religious - as long as I was confident this belief would have no effect on the policies they would persue.

 

[DonQuixote]

Sounds like the more successful approach mirrors where my head is at - like that they have a faith, just don't flaunt it too much because then the faith in God might really be an agenda with a particular religion.

 

[AsianDream]

Sounds like the more successful approach mirrors where my head is at - like that they have a faith, just don't flaunt it too much because then the faith in God might really be an agenda with a particular religion.

The idea that Politicians need to have a faith (no matter what this is) is profoundly wrong.

Religion and politics just shouldn't mix - full stop

 

[DonQuixote]

AsianDream,
I agree that Religion and Politics shouldn't mix.
That's a completely different statement than "having a belief in God".

I'm not suggesting a particular Religion be espoused at all.

Rather, my inference in a belief in God is that it means they likely share a lot of my values re: mores, and That, I believe, Is needed by today's politicians to BALANCE rights and responsibilities - both of the governments, and of the individuals.

While I am Catholic, there are many things I disagree with inside "Vatican Doctrine". My active presence on this site is fairly conclusive proof of that. BUT, my belief in God and the way I was raised means that I try to treat people fairly, justly.

I've had PM's on this site with people where I've Quoted Thos. Jefferson - I may disagree with what you say, personally, but I will defend (to the death?!) your Right to say it! That kind of social responsibility is generally taught to people of faith. I don't have any reference yea or nay, with people who are professed atheists - they have to establish and prove to me that they share the same basic beliefs in a just society and indiviual freedoms and responsibilities to me. The others do, too, but I give them an initial pass, depending on how they have presented themselves and their faith.

Oral Roberts, No, sorry.
JFK, even with what we know about their back room behaviour, yes.

I understand that you come from a culture that, for the past 60 years, has espoused atheism, even eschewing Confusianism and Buddhism, religions/belief systems that were strongly held in the middle kingdom for centuries. They have made religion illegal, decrying it at every turn, and the only exposure you may have seen was to more zealous clandestine ministries, rather than the quieter faith many of us have the luxury of enjoying. That certainly makes it more challenging for you to be able to comprehend our feelings -- as it does us for yours.

 

[bankside]

AsianDream,
I agree that Religion and Politics shouldn't mix.
That's a completely different statement than "having a belief in God".

I'm not suggesting a particular Religion be espoused at all.

Rather, my inference in a belief in God is that it means they likely share a lot of my values re: mores, and That, I believe, Is needed by today's politicians to BALANCE rights and responsibilities - both of the governments, and of the individuals.

While I am Catholic, there are many things I disagree with inside "Vatican Doctrine". My active presence on this site is fairly conclusive proof of that. BUT, my belief in God and the way I was raised means that I try to treat people fairly, justly.

I've had PM's on this site with people where I've Quoted Thos. Jefferson - I may disagree with what you say, personally, but I will defend (to the death?!) your Right to say it! That kind of social responsibility is generally taught to people of faith. I don't have any reference yea or nay, with people who are professed atheists - they have to establish and prove to me that they share the same basic beliefs in a just society and indiviual freedoms and responsibilities to me. The others do, too, but I give them an initial pass, depending on how they have presented themselves and their faith.

Oral Roberts, No, sorry.
JFK, even with what we know about their back room behaviour, yes.

I understand that you come from a culture that, for the past 60 years, has espoused atheism, even eschewing Confusianism and Buddhism, religions/belief systems that were strongly held in the middle kingdom for centuries. They have made religion illegal, decrying it at every turn, and the only exposure you may have seen was to more zealous clandestine ministries, rather than the quieter faith many of us have the luxury of enjoying. That certainly makes it more challenging for you to be able to comprehend our feelings -- as it does us for yours.

Actually, Asian Dream appears to come from a culture that, for almost all of the last 60 years, has espoused "God Save the Queen!" Incidentally, if we were talking about another country, espousing communism would not be the same thing as espousing atheism.

But that is the least of our worries. What is troublesome is the mistaken idea that people of faith hold Jeffersonian ideals (that quote isn't Jefferson btw). In my experience there are a lot who do not. The faithful need at least as much of your scrutiny before they should be allowed into public office; giving them an "initial pass" is a problem.

 

[AsianDream]

Actually, Asian Dream appears to come from a culture that, for almost all of the last 60 years, has espoused "God Save the Queen!" Incidentally, if we were talking about another country, espousing communism would not be the same thing as espousing atheism.

But that is the least of our worries. What is troublesome is the mistaken idea that people of faith hold Jeffersonian ideals (that quote isn't Jefferson btw). In my experience there are a lot who do not. The faithful need at least as much of your scrutiny before they should be allowed into public office; giving them an "initial pass" is a problem.

You're right bankside - the culture of Hong Kong is very different to that of Mainland China - with an obviously very strong British influence.

In fact I'd view Communism as essentially a faith based belief system - just like any other religion.

The common characteristic being absolute faith in an idea without sufficient logical reason for this belief or proof that it is true.

While a key skill for any politician is to be able to lie well - I'd be worried that the religious ones might actually believe their own lies.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Atheism is a Religion in and of itself because of its belief system, just like any other religion in the World. This is the last post I'm making in this forum.

Atheism is not a religion, at best it is the absence of religion. If Atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, if Atheism is a religion the off is a TV channel.

The law is based upon upon moral standards.
It's getting pretty tough in recent years though since laws have beeen written that are based on very subjective things.

The founding documents of the US were based on the the Rights of Man... The Declaration of Independence was based on the what the Founders of our coutry figured were laws given by their Creator... that is Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happniess.... Rights that were given to man by the Creator.

There were no moral standards involved with those rights.... but it was accepted at the time that morality was a given. Back then most people were members of a Chirstian Church. Didn't matter too much what denomination it was, they were pretty much based on the same principles.

Secularism has done great damage to our country in many ways.... just my opinion of course.
Laws in our country, at least the basics given in the Bill of Rights and early laws set down by Congress followed the principles of the Consitution.
Over the course of years government has eroded many of those original beliefs....
Manily the thouhts that people should govern themselves....be free of those that figure they have the right or authority to guide or tell others how they should behave and live thier lives.
I don't care if an elected person doesn't believe in God, as long as they dont' try to put a stop to those that do.
The Declaration of Independence is one of the most perfect documents ever written. It stated quite boldly that the rights of man are given to us by God.... that is the natural order of things.
The USA was the first country to set up a government following those ideas.
It's a shame that we've let our governemt get so much conrol over us.

I know I digressed from your thought here.....
I'd much rather vote for a person that still had a religious background than one that did not.
Not saying by any means that a person that doesn't believe in God is a bad person.... but seems to me that someone that is grounded in a spiritual belief would be better to lead our county.
And yeah, I know that many of our Presidents were not that way at all.
One of the worst recent Presidents was Jimmy Carter.... very religious but a disaster as President.
Well.... just my TCW..

Wow this whole post is something. First of all on the notion that the rights of man were given by the creator, it was a metaphor used to show that rights are immuible and eternal. Plus since much of the Founding Fathers were Deists this refers to the Deist God not the Christian one. In fact the Thomas Jefferson had this to say in regards to Christianity.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Next Secularism is the only thing in this country that has allowed you as a gay man or me as a woman to have any rights. A secular country was what the Fathers wanted so that people of all faiths would have equal rights and freedoms. They did not want a Theocracy or a religious Apartheid system.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Who has done more damage a secular humanist, or a certain church in rome that doesn't even want you to wear a condom to prevent disease... When was the last time a secular humanist wiped out entire populations... when was the last time a secular humanist waged a holy war. When was the last time a secular humanist burned people at the stakes, and so on. Secular humanist are bad folk, and a lot of people of faith aren't bad folk. What is so hard to grasp about secular humanism? Why does the amoral arguments always come up?

What is so difficult to understand about if I hit you I cause you pain then I don't want you hitting me to cause you pain. The Golden Rule and what have you to do exist because of religion they exist because people realize that when you slap a person across the face it causes pain and they don't want the same pain inflicted on them. Who needs a deity to tell you that. It is found in all cultures around the world and most religious traditions. So, it is not strictly a religious persons idea. Religious persons don't have a monopoly on morality and ethics. If they did have 99% of the shite we see today would not exist. Especially true of the traditions that stem from abraham is that i am right you are wrong this is the only way to be. i wonder how many divisions of the Christian Church happened today, last week, last month, or over the last 2,000 years of its history.

I agre once again Pumpkin the Catholic beliefs against birth control is evil and unspeakable. They would rather people contract fatal diseases and be budnend with children they can't take care of and suppor and then they have the nerve to rant against abortion. Personally I can't think of one secular humanist which has ever caused atrocity like Christians.
You are also right that religious people do not have a monopoly on morals. Their argument is that they in their own psychological weakness feel if there was no religion they themselves would have no morality and since they are so weak in their own real morals they would commit evil. It is like a man who does not break the law for the only reason that he would go to jail not because by it's nature it is wrong. What is right and what is wrong comes from man's own mind not any doctrine. You are also right if we didn't have these patriarchal faiths 99% of these great evils would not happen.

 

[sheep]

Simple question really I'm asking religious people only. I thought it would be interesting to ask.

Preferably, Yes. But I am not religulous, so does that disqualify my answer?

 

[blake16]

Absolutely I would.

 

[lunatic]

sure why not...

 

[TickTockMan]

Only a bigot wouldn't.