I'm not sure if this was suppose to be in the philosophy section (since the book is in the philosophy section at the book store) but I was reading the God Delusion (a book I got for christmas.. ironic I know.) But the book states some statistics.
Would you vote for someone who is of athiest beliefs? 91% of the population said they would vote for a christian politicion... (meaning 91% yes votes and 9% no votes)
But would YOU vote for an athiest politicion if his credentials match or exceed that of his christian (or other such accepted belief system) counterpart?
If yes or no, why do you make your decision?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
Of course I would vote for an atheist politician, provided that he still showed to have a core set of beliefs that matched my own. I'd want to make sure that they would work for the best programs and would generally do their job better then any other candidate. There's no real reason not to vote for an atheist; unless they're an atheist first, and a politician second.
... but I was reading the God Delusion (a book I got for christmas.. ironic I know.)
Ironic how? you probably meant coincidence.. right?
Anyway, religion is the basis for the political climate on earth, and deluded or not, people are going to vote for those who best represent their own personal views on life (Which most people would say is akin to their own beliefs)...
yeah.
It'd be a shame if someone deliberately didn't vote for someone who represented policies that they agree with, simply becuase their religious views differ in some way, but that is the way things go sometimes.
Well, I asked my mom this same question.. She told me, "No, she wouldn't" Because they do not believe in an afterlife, have no morals, and can do what they feel is right without reprocussion... then I pointed out bushes heavy christian ethics and how he has always done good things and made the christian society proud! (Sarcasm.. he's a mass murderer imo who cares nothing for anyone who is of any belief other then his own) But the point stands.. my mother does not believe athiests have any moral standpoint whatsoever.. I'm having trouble explaining to her that just because someone is christian, does not make them a good person... (Some serial killers were christians, so is bush) and being an athiest doesn't make them an automaticly bad person. Like me, Ive never stolen, never harmed someone, never do really big lies... I procrastinate sometimes, but thats pretty much it. and never cheated on my girlfriends.. but my ex cheated on me, lied to me (nonstop) and stole $1,300-$2,000 from me and she was a heavy christian.
Anyone know how I can convince her that athiests are not devil worshipers? Thats what she called me... a devil worshiper...... *confused*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
Well, I asked my mom this same question.. She told me, "No, she wouldn't" Because they do not believe in an afterlife, have no morals, and can do what they feel is right without reprocussion... then I pointed out bushes heavy christian ethics and how he has always done good things and made the christian society proud! (Sarcasm.. he's a mass murderer imo who cares nothing for anyone who is of any belief other then his own) But the point stands.. my mother does not believe athiests have any moral standpoint whatsoever.. I'm having trouble explaining to her that just because someone is christian, does not make them a good person... (Some serial killers were christians, so is bush) and being an athiest doesn't make them an automaticly bad person. Like me, Ive never stolen, never harmed someone, never do really big lies... I procrastinate sometimes, but thats pretty much it. and never cheated on my girlfriends.. but my ex cheated on me, lied to me (nonstop) and stole $1,300-$2,000 from me and she was a heavy christian.
Anyone know how I can convince her that athiests are not devil worshipers? Thats what she called me... a devil worshiper...... *confused*
Interesting that she would call you a devil worshiper for being an atheist. Atheists, like myself, don't even believe that a devil exists so she doesn't have to worry about you worshiping a devil.
If they are the same and only differ on that one point than it would not matter. Atheists would be just as afraid of dieing as the next person. Or at lest there fear of death would be the same as the other guy's fear of God getting mad at them. And just as relevant I am sure.
As an agnostic I do not think I would really care one way or the other (Big surprise) and I want to know where the 3rd option is. So black and white with you people.
I don't have a link but I saw it on Fox News and you will just have to take my word for it or look into it further than I did. Since this is a Fox Poll it can be biased as I do not wholey trust them.
Back when people first started announcing they were going to run for president (ummm 10-11 months ago) they had a poll on Fox of would you vote. There were like 8 different things on there. For a Christian, Muslim, Gay, Atheist, Criminal Record, Alcoholic and 2 other things.
The funny thing is Athiest was last on the poll even under an alcoholic. Infact Alcoholic was in the middle. Atheist only was 1% less than Gay they were like 4 and 5 percent respectively if I remember correctly. Christian was like 98% of people would vote for one. It was obvious they were trying to show how people should want to vote for Christians or whatever they were doing.
The way I see it is like this. People hate Atheists. They if asked in a placed where others can see will say "Yes I would vote for one if they shared the same concepts of law, morals, blah blah" but in a poll where anonymous they tell the truth "No way I would vote for someone that doesn't believe in my god".
About the above post and being called a Satan worshiper. Thatr happens all the time. I get called one almost daily on the internet on one site or another. People in general are not all that bright about these things and think if you are an Atheist it is the same as Satanic, Rapist, Murderer and the like.
I can't remember who said it but I heard a quote once that said something about how the biggest political suicide you could have is atheism.
I was thinking to myself how important is religion to people as a guide on who to vote for. What it is was the choice of: a white atheist republican who opposed abortion vs. a pro-choice, african-american christian democrat? Which is more important the the religious right the christian title or the antiabortion stance?
If they are the same and only differ on that one point than it would not matter. Atheists would be just as afraid of dieing as the next person. Or at lest there fear of death would be the same as the other guy's fear of God getting mad at them. And just as relevant I am sure.
As an agnostic I do not think I would really care one way or the other (Big surprise) and I want to know where the 3rd option is. So black and white with you people.
Actually, I think most atheists would be more afraid of death then a believing ism. Those do have something after death (at least, they believe so). Hence, they'd have less to fear of death.
Besides that note, I think that everyone who answered this poll with no should really take a second look at their priorities. What's more important, refraining an atheist from a political position, or running a country smoothly (note: not saying that all atheists do, but you get the point, I hope).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I don't have a link but I saw it on Fox News and you will just have to take my word for it or look into it further than I did. Since this is a Fox Poll it can be biased as I do not wholey trust them.
Back when people first started announcing they were going to run for president (ummm 10-11 months ago) they had a poll on Fox of would you vote. There were like 8 different things on there. For a Christian, Muslim, Gay, Atheist, Criminal Record, Alcoholic and 2 other things.
The funny thing is Athiest was last on the poll even under an alcoholic. Infact Alcoholic was in the middle. Atheist only was 1% less than Gay they were like 4 and 5 percent respectively if I remember correctly. Christian was like 98% of people would vote for one. It was obvious they were trying to show how people should want to vote for Christians or whatever they were doing.
I think the question was asked poorly. The trouble is, I can't think of a simple way of asking it myself. It's not just "which of these would you vote for?" because THAt question is really "on the basis of these descriptions alone, who would you vote for?" and in that case, it's no wonder people pick 'Christian' 98%, though it still boggles the mind that an alcoholic or criminal offender comes up so highly. People must really dislike '****', pardon my language.
You want to know which parties a voter would dismiss out of hand, without any other knowledge.
In that case, the format would be "check all that apply" to the question "For each of the following, if you knew a candidate matched the description, would you consider voting for her/him?"
Alternatively, "Are any of the following descriptors reason enough, for you personally, not to vote for a candidate?"
It would be good if you could measure the extent to which these descriptors, in and of themselves, play a role in the evaluation of a candidate (in proportion to other criteria)
I can't remember who said it but I heard a quote once that said something about how the biggest political suicide you could have is atheism.
I was thinking to myself how important is religion to people as a guide on who to vote for. What it is was the choice of: a white atheist republican who opposed abortion vs. a pro-choice, african-american christian democrat? Which is more important the the religious right the christian title or the antiabortion stance?
I am also interested in that question.
Note well, your writing could be much clearer. You lack logical connectives in critical locations, as well as commas.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
There's no real reason not to vote for an atheist; unless they're an atheist first, and a politician second.
I could live with a president who is atheist first and a politician second.
If the world really needs something, it's more atheists in powerful positions!
Religion has been holding things back for so long now. These miserable idiots who call themselves believers have nothing to offer but lies, and all for only one reason: to gain power or to follow their brainwashed vision (which helps others to gain power).
I wouldn't vote for a candidate inspite of him being an atheist, I would vote for him solely because of the fact that he is atheist!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signature and Avatar by Fatal GFX ---FatalAssasin---
:symb::symb::symb: Scion of Corruption of Clan Mono-Black:symb::symb::symb:
The way I see it is like this. People hate Atheists. They if asked in a placed where others can see will say "Yes I would vote for one if they shared the same concepts of law, morals, blah blah" but in a poll where anonymous they tell the truth "No way I would vote for someone that doesn't believe in my god".
Whether or not someone believes in my God has no bearing of whether or not I'd vote them into office. While a religion is a starting point for seeing what someone believes in, it has been proven time and time again that because someone simply states their religious beliefs, doesn't mean that's the code they actually live by. When I vote, I'll be voting pro-life, anti-death penalty, etc. If there is a candidate that fits my political views to a tee and happens to be atheist, then i wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote for them.
If I'm in a Holy Ordination ceremony, that's when a person's views on God will determine if I accept or reject them. When I'm behind a curtain in a voting booth is when someone's political standings will determine if they get my vote or not. You can generalize and throw wanton statements like that around all you want, but they certainly don't make your deduction correct.
Furthermore, I don't hate atheists. If anything, I sympathize with them. They don't like zealots screaming their views against them, and I don't like it either.
About the above post and being called a Satan worshiper. Thatr happens all the time. I get called one almost daily on the internet on one site or another. People in general are not all that bright about these things and think if you are an Atheist it is the same as Satanic, Rapist, Murderer and the like.
I'd like to know what sites you're visiting where people are calling you those things simply for being an atheist. This sounds more like a random, false anecdote versus an actual everyday occurrence. If you can provide proof, I'd be more then happy to apologize for doubting you.
I was thinking to myself how important is religion to people as a guide on who to vote for. What it is was the choice of: a white atheist republican who opposed abortion vs. a pro-choice, african-american christian democrat? Which is more important the the religious right the christian title or the antiabortion stance?
While I can see where you're going with this, you're leaving out some key details. For that specific issue, alone, I'd vote for the pro-life atheist. The problem is, no vote should go to someone based on one political topic in a vacuum. I'll vote for a candidate that can get as close to my political views as possible, and with only one topic, it doesn't really cover the scope that goes into researching a candidate
I don't know why I wouldn't vote for an atheist politician. Really, an atheist politician is the only one being truly honest. Most of our politicians give crap about God and go to church for show. Doesn't that make declared "Christian" politicians even more amoral than honest, direct declared "atheist" politicians? I'm not saying that all politicians don't care for God but I would go with the old saying that "actions are greater than words".
Then there are those politicians who really don't believe in anything and will vote whatever way their constituents want them to. As you can see, the moment someone becomes a Christian politician it is meaningless territory. Manipulation is what makes them politicians to begin with and that is just what they are. Republicans use moral to drive the US into ridiculous ploys, such as invading Iraq for oil.
Of course, it doesn't mean I dislike politicians who use religion to steer their political agenda. I mean, believers are often so empty-minded that there's no use reasoning with them other than by stooping to their lowly level of logic. In this way, I don't blame Republicans for being declared "Christians" and actual "atheists".
I really think that this thread emphasizes several important concepts.
First, beyond its stated purpose, this demonstrates that the majority of Americans no longer care to look at real issues. If they do, and this is for the majority of us, they will hold religious semantics as more important than actual influence. I think that Huckabee's current ranking in the polls is highly indicative of this as well.
It should be noted, at least form those of us who have posted, it is clear that this forum, which contains essentially the same possibilities of anonymity as the polls, is less influenced by such semantics. I agree with those above me, and would propose that the majority of people on this subforum would agree with the insignificance of religious semantics and alignment. I, personally, try to ignore all non-political facts of a candidate. Often relevant qualities of a candidate will only matter to me if they influence his political actions. I would elect a satanist zealot if I agreed with his political views and he didn't allow his religious views to interfere with his policies. Often that last part is impossible, but I'm trying to make a point. Regardless, this evidences that this community is much more erudite, and therefore using a more logical process than, obviously, the rest of America (as indicated by aforementioned surveys.)
Furthermore, it evidences a widespread fear and hatred of athiesism. I think this is due to propaganda and commonly held misconceptions.
To those of you who are athiests looking for rebuttles, I like what Mathew Bellamy said: "Being an atheist means you have to realise that when you die, that really is it. You've got to make the most of what you've got here and spread as much influence as you can. I believe that you only live through the influence that you spread, whether that means having a kid or making music"
Atheism is a religion in and of its non-religion in this manner. By not excusing oneself by means of an "intelligent design", one must accept his or her own actions. To this end, I am not necessarily atheist in that I deny god, but an atheist in the idea that I accept a god that does not care what I do, and therefor it is up to myself to guide my actions, and it is up to my own established moral system to guide me, not one impressed upon me.
I think that blind faith is a persisting problem that exists in our modern world, one that is a holdover from a past where religion was important to explain and bind people as a people. Now it seems, although I would never condemn any religious practices, and believe that everyone should practice any religion they believe in, that religion has begun to take residence over more important and relevant ideologies. Religion is good, but I believe one should not allow it to interfere with scientific or societal progress.
Actually, I think most atheists would be more afraid of death then a believing ism. Those do have something after death (at least, they believe so). Hence, they'd have less to fear of death.
Ummm... right... That's what I was saying, the atheist would be afraid of death... Go read the post again.
I'd like to hear from one of the people who voted no. I voted yes because, as others have said and I agree with, a candidate's legitimacy has everything to do with his/her personal positions on matters and his/her political competence, NOT his/her religious views or whatever else.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Getting an answer from someone that voted no would be rough unless someone will play devils advocate.
In this forum I would not expect to see the demographic (sp?) of people that would majority vote no. Since the Yes's outnumber no someone who argues against yes has to explain why they would discriminate on that issue alone for country leader.
I am sorry about my lack of puntuation and write skill in previous post that was pointed out. I want to say english isn't my first language. It is actually my fourth but that is not enough excuse for ignorance. I need to get back to studying it. I only use it on internet and never in daily life so with little practice it gets bad over time.
VerzenChaos: I think there's a link between intelligence and genetics, but you and your mother might prove me wrong
So the answer to the poll is obv, but it's silly to post a poll on a message board with a grossly disporportionate amount of people who are liberal, intelligent, open-minded people (I went there).
Also, I enjoyed reading the god delusion, and evne tohugh many of dawkins arguments can be taken apart by a clever theist, the message is good.
Why does it matter, honestly? Atheism isnt a set belief of religious code or even secular code. It is merely the non-belief in deities. Why would that have any impact on competence as a humaitarian in the office of politician?
For instance, I am an atheist (yet I enetertain the possibility of survival consciousness after death). Being an atheist doesnt define any code of ethics I may or may not have. For that matter, neither does religion. Religion gives the guise that a person is allegedly moral since many people associate moral behavior and living with religious belief, which is not necessarily true. It is more about stereotpye than anything else. Many people associate atheism with rebellious attitude, liberalism, abscence of morality, etc.
What matters to me, when I vote for anyone, is what the person does, and their intent. What a person believes does concern me, ebing that many people tend to act upon there beliefs, understandably. So, I would have to scrutinize their beliefs as well. Most importantly is what will this person do in office to better the lives of everyone in their respective communities, not a select few, or those who match their ideas of citizenry, or whatever quirks.....everyone in the community, in a humanitarian manner with a respect to their guradianship role.
I would not vote for someone who proclaims to be an "atheist", nor would I vote for a non-christian.
I am a "values voter." I vote for the candidates who best represent my views and my values. I want my politicians to be Pro-Life, Anti "Gay Marriage" and not afraid to stand up and proclaim their faith. An "atheist" cannot represent my values.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
Personally, what a person believes is his business, politician or not.
However, why would I want to a leader who thinks that the vast majority of mankind is wrong, or worse, holds the majority of mankind in contempt? Show me an atheist who doesn't think deists are being foolish (or downright stupid), and if he runs for office, then I'll look at his platform.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
VerzenChaos: I think there's a link between intelligence and genetics, but you and your mother might prove me wrong
So the answer to the poll is obv, but it's silly to post a poll on a message board with a grossly disporportionate amount of people who are liberal, intelligent, open-minded people (I went there).
Also, I enjoyed reading the god delusion, and evne tohugh many of dawkins arguments can be taken apart by a clever theist, the message is good.
So your insulting me, because I bring forth a question that made me think? Wow, thats mature.. and intelligent. Whenever someone is curious about a subject, you find the need to make an 'intelligent' post about my mother.... dude, there is a point in life when you must be mature and have a mature discussion. Mods, can I ask that you give him a warning for insulting me? According to the debate rules, you arn't allowed to insult or belittle other's questions or comments.
Irebel, why arn't you for gay marriages? Straight people shouldn't be the only miserable ones!
Plus its kind of retarded that the government offers bonuses for married people, but since gay's have a hard time getting married, then they don't get the benefit... "you don't choose to be gay, your either born with it or you joined the high school wrestling team, then its only a matter of time." - Carter off of spincity
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
Of course I'd vote for an atheist pol if I thought s/he was honest and represented me, just as I'd vote for a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. pol if I felt the same way. The fact that I'm an atheist myself might make me take a little more notice of him/her to begin with, but it wouldn't be a deciding factor.
I'm surprised no one's brought up Stalin yet. Because as we all know, atheism + politics = U.S.S.R., every time.
Yes. In the United States, at least, the government is specifically prohibited from passing laws building up a religion or impeding the free practice of said religion, so their religious beliefs are meaningless dribble like how their hair looks on camera that ends up being a factor in elections but has no place.
Of course I'd vote for an atheist pol if I thought s/he was honest and represented me, just as I'd vote for a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. pol if I felt the same way. The fact that I'm an atheist myself might make me take a little more notice of him/her to begin with, but it wouldn't be a deciding factor.
I'm surprised no one's brought up Stalin yet. Because as we all know, atheism + politics = U.S.S.R., every time.
stalin was not bad because he was an 'athiest'. He was insane and suffered from extreme paranoia. They had to hire people to make people stop clapping because the people thought if they stopped, stalin would kill them because he would think he was a traitor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would you vote for someone who is of athiest beliefs? 91% of the population said they would vote for a christian politicion... (meaning 91% yes votes and 9% no votes)
But would YOU vote for an athiest politicion if his credentials match or exceed that of his christian (or other such accepted belief system) counterpart?
If yes or no, why do you make your decision?
Ironic how? you probably meant coincidence.. right?
Anyway, religion is the basis for the political climate on earth, and deluded or not, people are going to vote for those who best represent their own personal views on life (Which most people would say is akin to their own beliefs)...
yeah.
It'd be a shame if someone deliberately didn't vote for someone who represented policies that they agree with, simply becuase their religious views differ in some way, but that is the way things go sometimes.
Anyone know how I can convince her that athiests are not devil worshipers? Thats what she called me... a devil worshiper...... *confused*
Interesting that she would call you a devil worshiper for being an atheist. Atheists, like myself, don't even believe that a devil exists so she doesn't have to worry about you worshiping a devil.
As an agnostic I do not think I would really care one way or the other (Big surprise) and I want to know where the 3rd option is. So black and white with you people.
Back when people first started announcing they were going to run for president (ummm 10-11 months ago) they had a poll on Fox of would you vote. There were like 8 different things on there. For a Christian, Muslim, Gay, Atheist, Criminal Record, Alcoholic and 2 other things.
The funny thing is Athiest was last on the poll even under an alcoholic. Infact Alcoholic was in the middle. Atheist only was 1% less than Gay they were like 4 and 5 percent respectively if I remember correctly. Christian was like 98% of people would vote for one. It was obvious they were trying to show how people should want to vote for Christians or whatever they were doing.
The way I see it is like this. People hate Atheists. They if asked in a placed where others can see will say "Yes I would vote for one if they shared the same concepts of law, morals, blah blah" but in a poll where anonymous they tell the truth "No way I would vote for someone that doesn't believe in my god".
About the above post and being called a Satan worshiper. Thatr happens all the time. I get called one almost daily on the internet on one site or another. People in general are not all that bright about these things and think if you are an Atheist it is the same as Satanic, Rapist, Murderer and the like.
I can't remember who said it but I heard a quote once that said something about how the biggest political suicide you could have is atheism.
I was thinking to myself how important is religion to people as a guide on who to vote for. What it is was the choice of: a white atheist republican who opposed abortion vs. a pro-choice, african-american christian democrat? Which is more important the the religious right the christian title or the antiabortion stance?
Actually, I think most atheists would be more afraid of death then a believing ism. Those do have something after death (at least, they believe so). Hence, they'd have less to fear of death.
Besides that note, I think that everyone who answered this poll with no should really take a second look at their priorities. What's more important, refraining an atheist from a political position, or running a country smoothly (note: not saying that all atheists do, but you get the point, I hope).
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
I think the question was asked poorly. The trouble is, I can't think of a simple way of asking it myself. It's not just "which of these would you vote for?" because THAt question is really "on the basis of these descriptions alone, who would you vote for?" and in that case, it's no wonder people pick 'Christian' 98%, though it still boggles the mind that an alcoholic or criminal offender comes up so highly. People must really dislike '****', pardon my language.
You want to know which parties a voter would dismiss out of hand, without any other knowledge.
In that case, the format would be "check all that apply" to the question "For each of the following, if you knew a candidate matched the description, would you consider voting for her/him?"
Alternatively, "Are any of the following descriptors reason enough, for you personally, not to vote for a candidate?"
It would be good if you could measure the extent to which these descriptors, in and of themselves, play a role in the evaluation of a candidate (in proportion to other criteria)
I am also interested in that question.
Note well, your writing could be much clearer. You lack logical connectives in critical locations, as well as commas.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I could live with a president who is atheist first and a politician second.
If the world really needs something, it's more atheists in powerful positions!
Religion has been holding things back for so long now. These miserable idiots who call themselves believers have nothing to offer but lies, and all for only one reason: to gain power or to follow their brainwashed vision (which helps others to gain power).
I wouldn't vote for a candidate inspite of him being an atheist, I would vote for him solely because of the fact that he is atheist!
Wise words:
If I'm in a Holy Ordination ceremony, that's when a person's views on God will determine if I accept or reject them. When I'm behind a curtain in a voting booth is when someone's political standings will determine if they get my vote or not. You can generalize and throw wanton statements like that around all you want, but they certainly don't make your deduction correct.
Furthermore, I don't hate atheists. If anything, I sympathize with them. They don't like zealots screaming their views against them, and I don't like it either.
I'd like to know what sites you're visiting where people are calling you those things simply for being an atheist. This sounds more like a random, false anecdote versus an actual everyday occurrence. If you can provide proof, I'd be more then happy to apologize for doubting you.
While I can see where you're going with this, you're leaving out some key details. For that specific issue, alone, I'd vote for the pro-life atheist. The problem is, no vote should go to someone based on one political topic in a vacuum. I'll vote for a candidate that can get as close to my political views as possible, and with only one topic, it doesn't really cover the scope that goes into researching a candidate
Then there are those politicians who really don't believe in anything and will vote whatever way their constituents want them to. As you can see, the moment someone becomes a Christian politician it is meaningless territory. Manipulation is what makes them politicians to begin with and that is just what they are. Republicans use moral to drive the US into ridiculous ploys, such as invading Iraq for oil.
Of course, it doesn't mean I dislike politicians who use religion to steer their political agenda. I mean, believers are often so empty-minded that there's no use reasoning with them other than by stooping to their lowly level of logic. In this way, I don't blame Republicans for being declared "Christians" and actual "atheists".
First, beyond its stated purpose, this demonstrates that the majority of Americans no longer care to look at real issues. If they do, and this is for the majority of us, they will hold religious semantics as more important than actual influence. I think that Huckabee's current ranking in the polls is highly indicative of this as well.
It should be noted, at least form those of us who have posted, it is clear that this forum, which contains essentially the same possibilities of anonymity as the polls, is less influenced by such semantics. I agree with those above me, and would propose that the majority of people on this subforum would agree with the insignificance of religious semantics and alignment. I, personally, try to ignore all non-political facts of a candidate. Often relevant qualities of a candidate will only matter to me if they influence his political actions. I would elect a satanist zealot if I agreed with his political views and he didn't allow his religious views to interfere with his policies. Often that last part is impossible, but I'm trying to make a point. Regardless, this evidences that this community is much more erudite, and therefore using a more logical process than, obviously, the rest of America (as indicated by aforementioned surveys.)
Furthermore, it evidences a widespread fear and hatred of athiesism. I think this is due to propaganda and commonly held misconceptions.
To those of you who are athiests looking for rebuttles, I like what Mathew Bellamy said: "Being an atheist means you have to realise that when you die, that really is it. You've got to make the most of what you've got here and spread as much influence as you can. I believe that you only live through the influence that you spread, whether that means having a kid or making music"
Atheism is a religion in and of its non-religion in this manner. By not excusing oneself by means of an "intelligent design", one must accept his or her own actions. To this end, I am not necessarily atheist in that I deny god, but an atheist in the idea that I accept a god that does not care what I do, and therefor it is up to myself to guide my actions, and it is up to my own established moral system to guide me, not one impressed upon me.
I think that blind faith is a persisting problem that exists in our modern world, one that is a holdover from a past where religion was important to explain and bind people as a people. Now it seems, although I would never condemn any religious practices, and believe that everyone should practice any religion they believe in, that religion has begun to take residence over more important and relevant ideologies. Religion is good, but I believe one should not allow it to interfere with scientific or societal progress.
Where's the other side of this argument?
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
In this forum I would not expect to see the demographic (sp?) of people that would majority vote no. Since the Yes's outnumber no someone who argues against yes has to explain why they would discriminate on that issue alone for country leader.
I am sorry about my lack of puntuation and write skill in previous post that was pointed out. I want to say english isn't my first language. It is actually my fourth but that is not enough excuse for ignorance. I need to get back to studying it. I only use it on internet and never in daily life so with little practice it gets bad over time.
So the answer to the poll is obv, but it's silly to post a poll on a message board with a grossly disporportionate amount of people who are liberal, intelligent, open-minded people (I went there).
Also, I enjoyed reading the god delusion, and evne tohugh many of dawkins arguments can be taken apart by a clever theist, the message is good.
For instance, I am an atheist (yet I enetertain the possibility of survival consciousness after death). Being an atheist doesnt define any code of ethics I may or may not have. For that matter, neither does religion. Religion gives the guise that a person is allegedly moral since many people associate moral behavior and living with religious belief, which is not necessarily true. It is more about stereotpye than anything else. Many people associate atheism with rebellious attitude, liberalism, abscence of morality, etc.
What matters to me, when I vote for anyone, is what the person does, and their intent. What a person believes does concern me, ebing that many people tend to act upon there beliefs, understandably. So, I would have to scrutinize their beliefs as well. Most importantly is what will this person do in office to better the lives of everyone in their respective communities, not a select few, or those who match their ideas of citizenry, or whatever quirks.....everyone in the community, in a humanitarian manner with a respect to their guradianship role.
I am a "values voter." I vote for the candidates who best represent my views and my values. I want my politicians to be Pro-Life, Anti "Gay Marriage" and not afraid to stand up and proclaim their faith. An "atheist" cannot represent my values.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
However, why would I want to a leader who thinks that the vast majority of mankind is wrong, or worse, holds the majority of mankind in contempt? Show me an atheist who doesn't think deists are being foolish (or downright stupid), and if he runs for office, then I'll look at his platform.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
So your insulting me, because I bring forth a question that made me think? Wow, thats mature.. and intelligent. Whenever someone is curious about a subject, you find the need to make an 'intelligent' post about my mother.... dude, there is a point in life when you must be mature and have a mature discussion. Mods, can I ask that you give him a warning for insulting me? According to the debate rules, you arn't allowed to insult or belittle other's questions or comments.
Irebel, why arn't you for gay marriages? Straight people shouldn't be the only miserable ones!
Plus its kind of retarded that the government offers bonuses for married people, but since gay's have a hard time getting married, then they don't get the benefit... "you don't choose to be gay, your either born with it or you joined the high school wrestling team, then its only a matter of time." - Carter off of spincity
I'm surprised no one's brought up Stalin yet. Because as we all know, atheism + politics = U.S.S.R., every time.
stalin was not bad because he was an 'athiest'. He was insane and suffered from extreme paranoia. They had to hire people to make people stop clapping because the people thought if they stopped, stalin would kill them because he would think he was a traitor.