Would you vote for an Atheist President?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

but ANYTHING you do w/Jimmy Carter is way funniier so aways go w/that material!

Can I have what you're having?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

is an Atheist a pro-gun, american owned business orientated, anti-tax, guy who doesn't give a crap about who marries who or who aborts who or what Hugo and Fidel think, care or are even alive. He got my vote!

Uh oh. You have failed the new RNC "Candidate Test" for proper conservative views. You have to get 8 of 10 right (god bless Ronald Reagan our leader) in order to get funding and support if you are running for office on the GOP ticket.

[Honu]

Makes me wonder why anyone of the Islamic faith would be in the miltary knowing at anytime they could be called to active duty , given the religion is all about peace and loving each other.
I just dont see how the religion of Islam is cohesive with military duty , but Im sure someone is about to enlighten me.

[Riot]

Makes me wonder why anyone of the Christian faith would be in the miltary knowing at anytime they could be called to active duty , given the religion is all about peace and loving each other.

FTFY

There have always been a good number of Americans as concientious objectors due to their Christian-based religion.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Riot

FTFY

There have always been a good number of Americans as concientious objectors due to their Christian-based religion.

Nice job injecting.....I knew you would enlighten me.

[Riot]

The GOP "Purity" resolution for GOP candidates (not yet passed) - check this one out.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...wt&twt=nytimes

"The GOP = The Party Of Oppose"

The Republican National Committee could be on the verge of imposing a strict purity test on GOP candidates and officeholders, if a proposed resolution passes at their upcoming meeting in January: If you disagree with the party line on three or more out of a list of ten key issues, no money or official party support for you.

The resolution, officially called "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" draws its standard through a literal interpretation of an old saying of the Gipper's -- that someone who agreed with him 80% of the time is his friend, not his 20% enemy. Thus, this resolution sets 80% as a floor for support of GOP issues.

The resolution could set up a new problem for chairman Michael Steele. Earlier this year, he successfully turned back a symbolic measure that called upon the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." This latest resolution -- coming after the NY-23 special election, in which moderate GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava was forced out in favor of a third-party Conservative, who then lost to the Democrat -- could have real material impacts.

The resolution list is as follows:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

And the resolution concludes that any candidates who disagrees with three out of ten of these, "as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate," shall be ineligible for the national party's endorsement or financial support.

[Riot]

My only point is all religions are like that, and Christianity produces tons of CO's.

Who was the famous baseball player that was a CO in WWI or II?? I think they made a movie about him.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Riot

My only point is all religions are like that, and Christianity produces tons of CO's.

Who was the famous baseball player that was a CO in WWI or II?? I think they made a movie about him.

But at this time in history there is no bigger menace on earth than Islamic radicals , the fact that we have declared war on their radicals makes me wonder why someone of that faith who believes its not right to kill others of their own faith(only applies to military personnel because they kill each other everyday all over the world) would want to be involved in the military.
Sure dont see many Christains of any denomonation walking around declaring war and flying planes into buildings and except for the IRA what Christains have done this in the last 100 years,
So , in order for me to vote for an athiest , I would want them to at least have some inclining that they are not the end all be all of the universe and be fically conservitive and liberal as far as private and civil rights are concerned.

Riot im sure you will google something to debate my statement so consider it a non retorical question.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Honu

Perhaps , Im not sure though as I would hope that a person running the country would have some belief in a higher being or at least a sense of something or someone greater than themselves.

i don't have faith, but i do believe in something greater than myself. no man is an island and all that.
the issue isn't with someone believing, or not believing in something bigger. the problem comes in when someone thinks they're infallible because of their faith, and that they are acting on orders from above. imo that's tremendously egotistical.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

There could very well be an atheist candidate who finds abortion horrible without the influence of religion.

Very true. All that is necessary is that an individual have a consistent, reasoned opinion of where life begins. Most moral people, no religion required, would object to interfering with the course of life after that point. Before that point is a different story.

[miraja2]

Anybody who believes in a god (or gods) always strikes me as at least a little bit cuckoo, so voting for any of them is usually slightly difficult.
I just always hope that the people I vote for are actually closet atheists or agnostics who just feel the need to put on the mask of religion for electoral purposes.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Anybody who believes in a god (or gods) always strikes me as at least a little bit cuckoo, so voting for any of them is usually slightly difficult.
I just always hope that the people I vote for are actually closet atheists or agnostics who just feel the need to put on the mask of religion for electoral purposes.

Well, I wouldn't be too sweeping with the anti-god thing. It's not really any easier to believe that everything (matter, energy, the universe) was always here, that our existence is a random accident or fortuitous occurrence, and that life therefore has no meaning. Yet, for some reason, both good and evil do exist.

Both suppositions (creator or no creator) are equally difficult to get one's head around. When we of finite capacity contemplate the infinite, whether it be physical or supernatural, no concrete conclusion is possible, as we lack the ability and time to process all the information. Yet the answer itself must exist: "true" or "false". I can't put down somebody for choosing one or the other based on his judgment given the unknowns involved.

[dagolfer33]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Well, I wouldn't be too sweeping with the anti-god thing. It's not really any easier to believe that everything (matter, energy, the universe) was always here, that our existence is a random accident or fortuitous occurrence, and that life therefore has no meaning. Yet, for some reason, both good and evil do exist.

Both suppositions (creator or no creator) are equally difficult to get one's head around. When we of finite capacity contemplate the infinite, whether it be physical or supernatural, no concrete conclusion is possible, as we lack the ability and time to process all the information. Yet the answer itself must exist: "true" or "false". I can't put down somebody for choosing one or the other based on his judgment given the unknowns involved.

So what you are saying is, atheist have faith in their belief there is no god, and others have faith there is a god. But both have a common denominator of faith in the totally unknown and incomprehensible.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

So what you are saying is, atheist have faith in their belief there is no god, and others have faith there is a god. But both have a common denominator of faith in the totally unknown and incomprehensible.

That's one way to state it. Faith is only applicable where knowledge is incomplete.

All I was trying to say is that atheists have no basis to feel superior to those with faith in a creator. There are plenty of invisible and unexplained phenomena in nature. Our knowledge will always be the smallest fraction of what is necessary given the scale of the universe.

The answer must exist. It is binary -- true or false. The answer to "What is the result of the next coin flip?" also exists: heads or tails. Who's going to be right? It is a prediction before the event, and history thereafter. One opinion is not superior to the other until more information comes to light.

How many people are still seriously advocating for the flat earth hypothesis since Magellan's crew completed their circumnavigation of the globe? How about the earth-centric view of the solar system? Kepler's discovery eventually put an end to that too.

We are not likely to get more information then we have. Christians believe we have the information we need already, from Christ himself. Others don't believe that and so may draw the opposite conclusion from their opposite premise.

[dagolfer33]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's one way to state it. Faith is only applicable where knowledge is incomplete.

All I was trying to say is that atheists have no basis to feel superior to those with faith in a creator. There are plenty of invisible and unexplained phenomena in nature. Our knowledge will always be the smallest fraction of what is necessary given the scale of the universe.

The answer must exist. It is binary -- true or false. The answer to "What is the result of the next coin flip?" also exists: heads or tails. Who's going to be right? It is a prediction before the event, and history thereafter. One opinion is not superior to the other until more information comes to light.

How many people are still seriously advocating for the flat earth hypothesis since Magellan's crew completed their circumnavigation of the globe? How about the earth-centric view of the solar system? Kepler's discovery eventually put an end to that too.

We are not likely to get more information then we have. Christians believe we have the information we need already, from Christ himself. Others don't believe that and so may draw the opposite conclusion from their opposite premise.

Well stated.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's one way to state it. Faith is only applicable where knowledge is incomplete.

All I was trying to say is that atheists have no basis to feel superior to those with faith in a creator. There are plenty of invisible and unexplained phenomena in nature. Our knowledge will always be the smallest fraction of what is necessary given the scale of the universe.

The answer must exist. It is binary -- true or false. The answer to "What is the result of the next coin flip?" also exists: heads or tails. Who's going to be right? It is a prediction before the event, and history thereafter. One opinion is not superior to the other until more information comes to light.

How many people are still seriously advocating for the flat earth hypothesis since Magellan's crew completed their circumnavigation of the globe? How about the earth-centric view of the solar system? Kepler's discovery eventually put an end to that too.

We are not likely to get more information then we have. Christians believe we have the information we need already, from Christ himself. Others don't believe that and so may draw the opposite conclusion from their opposite premise.

Not bad for a neo-con

I think what drives atheists, and even agnostics to play the "Believing in god is dumb card" is the omnipotent vibes that many people of all faiths put out. Obviously whatever your belief, or non-belief is you feel it is correct. But the smarmy looks and comments over the years from Catholics and especially born-agains that they know something I don't is what fuels any public decrying of organized religion that I might emit.

It's weird..I have gone to Christmas mass with very good friends and it's a very peaceful experience. I almost feel jealous that they are so happy and convinced that what they are doing by eating crackers and drinking wine is special. Good for them I think, but don't tell me I'm wrong.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

My only point is all religions are like that, and Christianity produces tons of CO's.

Who was the famous baseball player that was a CO in WWI or II?? I think they made a movie about him.

Barry Bonds

[Cannon Shell]

I would prefer a common sense atheist. By common sense I mean someone who wouldn't spend time and money trying to change the wording on walls or dollar bills but also a person who wouldn't make policy distinctly based upon religious views.

I feel strongly that Bush was in error by limiting stem-cell research by tying it to the abortion issue. While it may have been a little tough for him to justify to many of his supporters, clearly their could have been more leeway allowed.

that being said the anti-christian bias held by much of the left is as much of a problem as the rights advocacy of religious politics

I'd vote for a politician who surfs ESPN while on the clock.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's one way to state it. Faith is only applicable where knowledge is incomplete.

All I was trying to say is that atheists have no basis to feel superior to those with faith in a creator. There are plenty of invisible and unexplained phenomena in nature. Our knowledge will always be the smallest fraction of what is necessary given the scale of the universe.

The answer must exist. It is binary -- true or false. The answer to "What is the result of the next coin flip?" also exists: heads or tails. Who's going to be right? It is a prediction before the event, and history thereafter. One opinion is not superior to the other until more information comes to light.

How many people are still seriously advocating for the flat earth hypothesis since Magellan's crew completed their circumnavigation of the globe? How about the earth-centric view of the solar system? Kepler's discovery eventually put an end to that too.

We are not likely to get more information then we have. Christians believe we have the information we need already, from Christ himself. Others don't believe that and so may draw the opposite conclusion from their opposite premise.

two very fine, well thought out posts.

i'll challenge you on one aspect which is the idea that lack of proof means that evidence for both sides is equal. i'd argue that an extraordinary proposition requires extraordinary proof and the lack of such evidence supports the idea that it isn't true.

if we're discussing bigfoot, does the fact that doubter's can't "prove" it doesn't exist to the satisfaction of believers mean both sides of the argument have equal standing? or are we allowed to consider that a breeding population of large land mammals would leave behind some irrefutable evidence (skeleton's, droppings, etc.) and the lack thereof supports the idea the idea that bigfoot is bunk?

i know a supernatural entity might not leave behind such traces. but why does the lack of "proof" lead to the conclusion that both sides could be right? there's a higher burden on those making the truly extraordinary claim to prove their case.

i don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. i know a lot of great thoughtful, kindhearted, christians. you seem like one of those. but i don't characterize my thoughts on god as "faith" (as a later poster suggested) anymore than i would my thoughts on gravity. both are unseen forces and really pretty extraordinary claims. but only one has observable evidence that supports it.