Can An Atheist Be President.

[Galahad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Because religion isn't based on reason, it's based on belief.

I'm guessing....out of pure belief mind you.........that Sir Thomas More might have disagreed with you.....

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by Galahad
I'd think it would be somewhat difficult for an avowed atheist not to appear to be hostile toward religion during the course of a campaign.

Why? I don't think a lack of personal belief means that you are hostile toward others' beliefs.

On the contrary; most atheists I know are more openminded about religion than some religious people I know. I think it depends on the individual.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
Why? I don't think a lack of personal belief means that you are hostile toward others' beliefs.

On the contrary; most atheists I know are more openminded about religion than some religious people I know. I think it depends on the individual.

On the second point, they would not get through a campaign without being questioned about their philosophy. In my experience, it is quite a feat to explain that philosophy without appearing to consider yourself superior or otherwise condescending toward believers.

On the first point, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Based upon my experience just the opposite is true.

 

[Red Wings Fan]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Because religion isn't based on reason, it's based on belief.

For me it is based on the belief in something that has been proven over the course of the last few thousand years and proven through the world-accepted method in which history gets written; The number of documents uncovered that actually support the historical 'item' vs. the number of those that have been uncovered that contradict.

 

[VampHeartless]

Actually, this argument is REALLY funny for anyone who is a history buff, because it starts out with a quote from Abraham Lincoln.

Now, here's the big surprise...most people think Lincoln was an atheist. In fact, the only time he discussed God in his career, it was for political reasons because the other party began calling him an atheist for political gain.

Letters that discuss Lincoln's religous alignment
Quotes that support this belief

Also, just to stir things up some more...did you know that "Under God" was not originally part of the pledge of allegiance? It wasn't added until 1954 with help from our good friend Sen McCarthy.

Under God

Yeah...let's throw our support behind people like that guy...

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by wvrevy
So, then your "views" aren't based on reason, but on religion-based "beliefs" ?

Seriously ?

I don't see where I said anything of the sort. I just wonder how much an atheist and a Roman Catholic can have in common. I am very much open to hearing an atheist out. If you're pro-life, anti-death penalty, fiscally conservative, pro-free-market, etc. and an atheist, I don't see a problem getting my vote. Most of my atheist friends are not on the same page with me politically and wouldn't get my vote. I've seen here, however, that there just might be some atheists who agree with me on the issues, so I'd have to consider them.

Your insinuation that a view, if based on religious conviction, must violate reason, is bigotted. And it's this kind of assumption that would have me worried about an atheist candidate. It's one thing to personally doubt the existence of God, and another to exhibit hositility and disdain for those who do not share your doubt. You seem to say that anyone possessed of faith must be stupid; I hope I've misread you.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
I'm guessing....out of pure belief mind you.........that Sir Thomas More might have disagreed with you.....

More lived in a time when professing atheism would have been labled heresy, and would have been, at the very least professionally, catastrophic.

Besides...the thing about Utopia is that every man will view it differently. Personally, I have never seen a rational argument for the existance of god that does not come down, in the end, to "well, you just have to have faith." Not saying that's necessarily a good or bad thing, but it is NOT based on "reason".

Take Red Wings Fan's post as an example. He (She?) claims to have this belief based on "evidence", when in fact, all evidence points to the contrary. The world was NOT created in 7 days. In fact, there is no evidence to say that it was "created" at all. The problem with this argument is that you have to accept, as a premise, that "God" is omnipotent...and you have to accept that ON FAITH. There IS no rational reason to believe it, save our fear of simply saying we don't know how something happened.

Sorry to use you as an example, but your response is exactly the problem I have with most religious discussion. You claim "evidence" for things that are nothing more than the writings of other men who ALSO BELIEVED the same as you.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by VampHeartless

Also, just to stir things up some more...did you know that "Under God" was not originally part of the constitution? It wasn't added until 1954 with help from our good friend Sen McCarthy.

Under God

Yeah...let's throw our support behind people like that guy...

I presume you mean "Under God" was never part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. There are indeed, no references to God in the Constitution. There are, however, a few references in the Declaration of Independence to God.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Fizban257
Your insinuation that a view, if based on religious conviction, must violate reason, is bigotted. And it's this kind of assumption that would have me worried about an atheist candidate. It's one thing to personally doubt the existence of God, and another to exhibit hositility and disdain for those who do not share your doubt. You seem to say that anyone possessed of faith must be stupid; I hope I've misread you.

You have. You are perfectly free to BELIEVE whatever you want to. The constitution guarantees you that right. However, to say that you doubt an atheist could agree with you implies that your stances on issues are based on your religion, not your reason.

And yes, I'm sorry, but there IS a seperation there. Religion, no matter what flavor it comes in, ALWAYS boils down, in the end, to faith in the unseen. No matter HOW you try to spin it, pure reason and logic can never come to that same conclusion. If I see a tree outside, in a well developed area, I'm probably right in assuming - believing - that someone planted it there. But I can't know that, based on reasoning.

I don't mean it as an insult to people of faith, simply because I happen to disagree with them. But calling anything - be it a stance on abortion or gay marriage - "rational" while basing it on a religious conviction is just wrong.

 

[Red Wings Fan]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Sorry to use you as an example, but your response is exactly the problem I have with most religious discussion. You claim "evidence" for things that are nothing more than the writings of other men who ALSO BELIEVED the same as you.

Don't worry about it. You are quite right. There are definitely some things you have to take on faith. My faith extends from my belief (based on the documentation I referenced in previous post) that Christ is the son of God and was resurrected. Documentation, in a nutshell, basically is that there has never been a document found, to date, that disputes this (and believe me, with as many people that hated Him, there should be). On the opposite side, there are thousands of documents that support His claims.

You talk about using reason to support your opinion. I would contend that reason is the ability to come to a conclusion using logical thinking. Is it logical to assume, then, that a preponderrence of evidence for something would make that something true (except in the case of OJ)? If the answer is yes, then the case is made for Christ as the son of God.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I don't mean it as an insult to people of faith, simply because I happen to disagree with them. But calling anything - be it a stance on abortion or gay marriage - "rational" while basing it on a religious conviction is just wrong.

Your reasoning here is only valid if the religious conviction is never chalenged by the individual. You make the false assumption that once a religion is accepted, a person shuts off their brain and never thinks again. I always have and always will question myself and my faith on every issue. You also seem to assume that no thought ever goes into a decision by the authorities within a religion. In my own faith, volumes are written explaining the Church's position on every major issue. These opinions are widely published and open for anyone's examination. If you don not agree with them, you are free to practice another faith or none at all. To use one of your examples, the Church's stance on abortion is based on a rational examination of where life begins. The Church has decided, based on all the relevant scientific data, that human life begins at conception. Upon examination of their arguement, I agree. You may not, but to assume the decision of myself or my Church was not based on a reasonable and rational examination of the data is simply wrong. As another poster here proves, atheists too can come to the conclusion that abortion ends a human life. Why is the atheist's pro-life stance rational, while mine is not?

 

[caitycaity]

well, since i am an atheist, i would vote for one, sure. i vote for the person, not the religion.

however, since we have had only christian white men presidents, i doubt an atheist is on the agenda any time soon.

 

[poohandwendy]

Could they? Sure, nothing illegal about it

Would they? Unlikely any time soon

Would I vote for them? Unlikely, because they wouldn't represent me in a fundamental way.

 

[kpgclark]

How do you feel an athiest would represent you differently than a Christian in government?

 

[kpgclark]

I'm also curious to know whether the folks who said they would NEVER vote for an Athiest would vote for a Jewish president.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Fizban257
Your reasoning here is only valid if the religious conviction is never chalenged by the individual. You make the false assumption that once a religion is accepted, a person shuts off their brain and never thinks again. I always have and always will question myself and my faith on every issue. You also seem to assume that no thought ever goes into a decision by the authorities within a religion. In my own faith, volumes are written explaining the Church's position on every major issue. These opinions are widely published and open for anyone's examination. If you don not agree with them, you are free to practice another faith or none at all. To use one of your examples, the Church's stance on abortion is based on a rational examination of where life begins. The Church has decided, based on all the relevant scientific data, that human life begins at conception. Upon examination of their arguement, I agree. You may not, but to assume the decision of myself or my Church was not based on a reasonable and rational examination of the data is simply wrong. As another poster here proves, atheists too can come to the conclusion that abortion ends a human life. Why is the atheist's pro-life stance rational, while mine is not?

Oh, PLEASE tell me you're joking about that aboriton argument There is NO evidence that "life" begins at conception. In fact, AT conception, a fingernail has more cellular complexity than an embryo, so please give that a rest. There IS no "evidence" that "life" begins at conception, that is simply what you CHOOSE to BELIEVE.

(For what it's worth, there is plenty of evidence that it may start later during gestation, but earlier than "late term", but that's a completely different argument.)

Faith, in the end, is the denial of reason. Period. So long as that faith must, at it's very heart, contain an ounce of belief in something unprovable, it will NEVER be called "rational" by anyone not trying to make it into more than it is.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I wonder which "Lord" the founders were referring to when the Constitution was written?

I guess we should take that out too...

As for the poll, I wouldn't have any problem voting for an atheist if he/she agreed with me on issues that are important to me.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, PLEASE tell me you're joking about that aboriton argument There is NO evidence that "life" begins at conception. In fact, AT conception, a fingernail has more cellular complexity than an embryo, so please give that a rest. There IS no "evidence" that "life" begins at conception, that is simply what you CHOOSE to BELIEVE.

I don't want to hi-jack this thread, and I was nervous about expanding upon your abortion example for this very reason. You can disagree about whether or not it is "complex" enough to deserve protection but, at conception, science tell us that you have a single-celled living organism defined as human by its genetic structure and that this living human organism is distinct from it's mother, again as determined by its geneitc make-up. By the time any woman can know she's pregnant (14 days after conception) the organism in question is significantly more complex than that. These are facts. Based on these facts, I believe that abortion is wrong because it results in the termination of a living human organism. Based on these facts, you believe that the organism is not sufficiently complex to deserve protection. Your belief is based on the same facts as mine, and that is the point I am trying to make. My belief, my religious conviction, is indeed based on a rational examination of the facts. Your insistence otherwise, however, seems a belief you hold regardless of the facts as presented.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by kpgclark
I'm also curious to know whether the folks who said they would NEVER vote for an Athiest would vote for a Jewish president.

Jews do believe in God.

 

[MosMom]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Jews do believe in God.

Yes, but they don't believe Jesus Christ is their savior and according to Christianity they're screwed anyway. Soooo, does it really matter if they do? According to Christians they will have no divine help in running this country.