Would You Elect An Atheist?

[Xemmy]

A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups.

A few years ago there was a statistic that 70% of Americans said that it was important for The President to have strong faith.

Many Americans associate atheism with immorality, crime, and other negative demographics. A 2006 study found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did "not at all agree with my vision of American society", and that 48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African-Americans and homosexuals.

Virtually the most hated minority in America, it is considered political suicide to be one on the national stage.

Now it's obvious why Atheists are so hated, but it doesn't seem to have any statistical merit. Atheists make up less than 1% of our prison population, have a lower divorce rate than religious people, and Atheists have a higher average IQ then the general population.

If an Atheist was qualified, and shared your political views; Would you vote for them to the President of the United States?

 

[Ferbian]

How anybody can discriminate against an Atheist is rather mind boggling. Sure it differs from the common thing in people being religious of sorts, however to judge someone's political stance, or for that sake any choice in life based on the fact that he or she has no belief in religious happenings is just wrong.

Yes, I would elect an Atheist if I believed in the choices that he plans on making for the country, and I don't see how anybody wouldn't do otherwise. Especially considering a belief in something that is not political, obviously won't be affecting the political aspect of it, unless it's arguing about setting up churches etc. Which really isn't that big of a deal either, considering the fact that, as an atheist myself, I would still respect the needs and requests for churches, mosques etc.

Religion has no place in politics, and shouldn't affect the people's need to vote for an Atheist, Muslim, Catholic or Christian. Believing otherwise is just wrong.

 

[LigerBomb]

A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups.

Atheists make up less than 1% of our prison population, have a lower divorce rate than religious people, and Atheists have a higher average IQ then the general population.

If you could source those statistics I'd be very interested to read the original research studies/papers.

Anyway, of course I'd vote for an atheist. If anything, since they don't believe in an afterlife they'd perhaps be the most focused on the problems of the here and now. They would also be the living embodiment—and thus the truest protectors—of the so called "wall of separation" between church and state. As a self described Catholic Agnostic, I've no problem with other people's lack of believe/faith in a deity—be it a Christian god or otherwise.

 

[EffinSaySo]

I would elected an Atheist if he fits the following criteria:

Is an Independent. Not a Democrat or Republican.

Whole intention is to represents the American people, and not party lines like you see in Washington as SOP (the whole majority party control bullcrap when the Senate for example represent their States, not their party).

Gets publicly attacked by both the Republicans and Democrats through their media outlets aka Divide and Conquer washing (Fox News or MSNBC or CNN, etc.). If this were the case, it means he or she is truly an outsider and isn't a puppet with string attached. Not the mold (in wrestling it would be how Vince McMahon sees it) that could be shaped and manipulated into their puppet (main eventer).

Believes in the "rule of law" aka "no one is above the law" aka "government must obey the law", or enforce our immigration policy. Illegals aren't above the law and it tarnishes the ones who had to wait in line and endure the process. You can't pick and choose things because of the convenience.

Lastly, will work for the interest of the people diligently and not special interest / lobbyist. Because in Washington, it's inefficient spending machine that takes the taxpayers money and squanders it. But i bet the change (money not use) goes back to those puppets in Washington.

 

[Xemmy]

If you could source those statistics I'd be very interested to read the original research studies/papers.

Anyway, of course I'd vote for an atheist. If anything, since they don't believe in an afterlife they'd perhaps be the most focused on the problems of the here and now. They would also be the living embodiment—and thus the truest protectors—of the so called "wall of separation" between church and state. As a self described Catholic Agnostic, I've no problem with other people's lack of believe/faith in a deity—be it a Christian god or otherwise.

1. For The University's Study- http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2816.html

2. For the Prison population- http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm.

3. For the IQ- http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=7442685de361428379e28a8c44e79280

If you wish to check other sources please do so. I picked these specific ones to get as close to the true sources as possible, #2 seems to be the most suspect.


Hmm. I used to be Catholic.
As Bill Maher said, "Maybe someone who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven would be a little less likely to get them killed."

 

[Hazardous]

Damn right I would. When I mentioned to some one about wanting to go into politics. Was told that it would be harder for me, because I am of no "religious faith". Especially in this area, since it's such a Christian based one. If there was a Non-Religious guy, and say.. 2 Christians (one Catholic, one Mennonite) I would probably come in third. Regardless of my policies. Picking your leader based on his faith, is like picking a car just on the type of ash tray it has in it. It's pointless. So yes, I damn well would vote for one if I share his views

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Sure I would, so long as they weren't a crusader for atheism. The problem with most atheistic public figures is that they're hell-bent on telling you how wrong you are to have faith in a supernatural force whose existence can't be proven through reason. But, of course, I'd have a problem with anyone whose sole purpose in life was to ungracefully tell you how wrong you are about some particular thing.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

Yeah I would.

When I vote I look at what their politics can do to help me. The last thing I would care about was their religion unless they shoved it out there through out the campign in which case I probably wouldn't vote for them at all because a political election shouldn't be based on religion

In fact that's probably why i don't vote that much

 

[Xemmy]

Sure I would, so long as they weren't a crusader for atheism. The problem with most atheistic public figures is that they're hell-bent on telling you how wrong you are to have faith in a supernatural force whose existence can't be proven through reason. But, of course, I'd have a problem with anyone whose sole purpose in life was to ungracefully tell you how wrong you are about some particular thing.

It's not about telling people that their faith is wrong. It's about telling you that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity. If all you hear is "your wrong to believe in God" then you're listening to the wrong atheists.
Besides, it's about voting for someone who has your policies in mind. That's all.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Why the fuck you wouldn't? Because the whole society would lose their values, and it would be an "immoral" society? Pfff. IMO in should be the obvious pick, as Ligerbomb said, Church has nothing to do with politics, and that's the way it should be. You know, when there are controversies about homosexuality, religion always takes part, but as I said before, religion has none business with politics. An atheist for those particulary cases would be more objective (not saying that there isn't homophobics atheist).

The problem with most atheistic public figures is that they're hell-bent on telling you how wrong you are to have faith in a supernatural force whose existence can't be proven through reason.

Yeah...No, you've got it the wrong way. You don't see everyday atheist going to knock your door and bring you the "bad" news that the lord ain't coming...cause there isn't any lord...As all subcultures, groups etc.. there is obviously radicals amongst atheist, even violent ones.. But don't generalise. I'm an atheist and I don't made threads about how god is a business or something right?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm pretty much with tdigle on this. As a whole, I've got nothing against atheists. They're as entitled to their beliefs as I'm entitled to my own. If I agreed with the stance of an atheist candidate on the issues, if he/she was making a serious bid for the office and his/her primary concern wasn't to use her office as a soapbox to generally promote atheism instead of actually doing the job, then I'd have little problem giving him/her my vote.

However, just like the various Bible Thumpers that I've seen run for office on numerous occassions here in Kentucky, atheists can be every bit as focused on using their political platform to preach their beliefs, ram them down everyone's throat and spend so much time trying to convince you that they're right and everyone else is wrong that nothing gets accomplished aside from pissing people off.

Don't get me wrong, of course there are those with no religious or spiritual beliefs that are very reasonable people that do respect the beliefs of others. If they don't believe in a god or an afterlife, more power to 'em. If any of 'em run for office, I want them to spend their time and energy doing their job and at least doing their best to keep whatever promises they make rather than trying to advance and hype their own beliefs by startin' some shit that nobody is going to be able to win in the end.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

It's not about telling people that their faith is wrong. It's about telling you that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity. If all you hear is "your wrong to believe in God" then you're listening to the wrong atheists.
Besides, it's about voting for someone who has your policies in mind. That's all.

Not that this should have anything to do with the debate at hand, but have you heard of both Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and the Liberation Theology movement?

I don't know where this idea that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity came from, but any sociologist of religion will tell you that you're flat-out wrong; at worst, religion has done just as much good as bad for humanity.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I like that everyone in this thread has said they would vote for an athiest - although I'm very sure the statistics are also correct. Athiesm is seen by many, even those of not a strong faith as being immoral. It seems you need to follow a book written by some guys no different to us, thousands of years ago and believe in things that are no where near scientifically proven, to be able to live a good life.

I am of course exaggerating slightly, but some people DO think that way and it baffles me. Religion, or lack thereof, should not have ANY standing on a persons political stance or whether they'll be voted in. I wouldn't be more likely to vote for an athiest, I'd just look at their political policies and vote with whom I agreed with more, and whom I thought would be better for the country.

Tdigle is right to a degree - many people who are openly athiest in the public eye often do so to tell people how wrong they are about believing in religion. Although to be fair athiests have their fair share of abuse as well - it's wrong no matter where it's coming from, and is possibly why the statistics show what they do. Although not as big an issue in the UK, It shouldn't be a big issue in a political debate at all - it shouldn't be an issue full stop, and I long for the day that this becomes true. And it will, eventually.

 

[Xemmy]

Not that this should have anything to do with the debate at hand, but have you heard of both Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and the Liberation Theology movement?

I don't know where this idea that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity came from, but any sociologist of religion will tell you that you're flat-out wrong; at worst, religion has done just as much good as bad for humanity.

I know it's off topic, but I can't just leave that there and look beaten.

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? The shit education in the United States and the detriment of science. A majority of terrorism. Gays being pursecuted. The list goes on and on and on.
You give me Max Weber, I give you Karl Marx. Gotta love the Germans.

Yeah yeah, I get it, Religion isn't all bad. Catholics do charity work on the side, when their preists aren't molesting children. Jesus taught some of the best morality there is. Too bad the first half of the good book gets damn near as much attention. Islam has got peaceful passages. Unfortunately if there is a contridiction in the Koran, the violent passages supercede because they are written later.

Religion has done more harm than any other ideology to ever walk the face of the Earth. And that it what most Atheist pubic figures drone on about.....endlessly. (At least the ones that get T.V Time. Dawkins, Harris, Maher.) They don't yap much about the existence of God. It's usually about God being a leading cause of death.

X-X-X


Regardless, even if an atheist was the militant nightmare you mentioned earlier, I'd still vote for him. The most militant atheist usually promote one thing anyway in politics, and that's the secularism. At least in this day in age. (Stalin was an embarressment.) As long as he's doing his job, I think it'd be a good idea to have a militant atheist on the post. But that wouldn't be the decider for my vote. I'd elect an Evangelical Christian so long as he was good for the job.

 

[Dave]

Uhm… Yes!

Here is what I think and I may not sugar the pill here. You may want to put the kids to bed early and keep them from reading this.

Religion is a fucking curse that plagues the Earth. You do not need religion to be a Samaritan or to help people out. People think that because religion preaches good, for the most part, then it is a good thing overall. However, you will find that it actually breeds intolerance and this is just another example of that.

I assume you are talking about the United States with this post but I must say that 2000 households in Minnesota are fucking ******ed. I choose not to discriminate against anyone in the world. I will judge people on the evidence they give to me. If a person is a complete dick and is also Asian, am I going to hate all Asians because they are all dicks? Absolutely not! If a candidate is the best person for the job, I will vote for them. It is literally as simple as that.

In actual fact, I will likely vote for a politician who comes out as being Atheist because I am an atheist. That particular feature of the campaign will resonate with me and will probably strengthen my resolve in my belief that that person is the correct person for the job. In fact, it shows courage on the part of the person to say that they so not believe and that is a good quality to have.

To discriminate for any reason is fucking absurd. To discriminate against the people who are the only ones with any proof for their believe is even more ******ed.

 

[The Doctor]

Sure I would, so long as they weren't a crusader for atheism.

This, but I can apply this to electing a public figure of any religion, or lack thereof. It is not the job of a public official to impose their views on us, but rather the other way around. I wouldn't mind electing an atheist if he was objective and had good morals, and I wouldn't want to elect a religious man if his reason for opposing gay marriage or the death penalty was because "God says it's BAD!". And I wouldn't want to elect either if they tried passing laws establishing or banishing religion.

Anyone who looks like they would make the right moral decisions and believes in equal rights gets my vote.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I know it's off topic, but I can't just leave that there and look beaten.

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages?

You mean that age of history that some Medievalists don't even think happened? Or, as is more conventionally held, that period of history that came about more as a result of Roman laziness than Christianity?

The shit education in the United States

Religion has fuck-all to do with the state of compulsory education in America, so I have no clue what you're on about here.

and the detriment of science.

Are you fucking kidding me?! Religion has done nothing to hinder science's progress. Some religious extremists might not accept its validity or usefulness, but that doesn't mean it has been detrimental to science.

A majority of terrorism.

Wait, didn't you just impute the Dark Ages to religion? So, which is it: does religion make people too accepting of their fate or does it make people too determined to impose their will upon others?

Gays being pursecuted. The list goes on and on and on.

Yes, yes...it's a shame that in liberal democracies, where atheists are given the same civil rights and liberties as everyone else, homosexual persecution is virtually non-existent.

You give me Max Weber, I give you Karl Marx. Gotta love the Germans.

Except Karl Marx saw religion as a tool, not as some destructive force with a will of its own. Underlying religion in Marx's analysis are capital owners who look for every which way to create as wide a margin as possible between the value of workers' labor and their wages.

Yeah yeah, I get it, Religion isn't all bad. Catholics do charity work on the side, when their preists aren't molesting children.

Riiight...all priests molest their young congregants. The incidence of child molestation in the Catholic church is no greater than it is in any other Judeo-Christian denomination. Your argument against priests would only work if you thought they should be seen as beacons of morality. However, since your atheism precludes your from seeing them as model citizens, you should find it pretty fucking remarkable that they molest children a hell of a lot less than those who do so out in the secular world.

Oh, and religious people are responsible for the overwhelming majority of world charity. In general, atheists are comparatively lazy and selfish (only those working in academia seem to be the exception to this rule).

Jesus taught some of the best morality there is. Too bad the first half of the good book gets damn near as much attention. Islam has got peaceful passages. Unfortunately if there is a contridiction in the Koran, the violent passages supercede because they are written later.

And your proof that all religious people treat sacred texts as inviolable is where?

Religion has done more harm than any other ideology to ever walk the face of the Earth. And that it what most Atheist pubic figures drone on about.....endlessly. (At least the ones that get T.V Time. Dawkins, Harris, Maher.) They don't yap much about the existence of God. It's usually about God being a leading cause of death.

Yeah, I don't buy this at all. I'd have no problem telling Dawkins, Harris, and Maher that they're flat-out wrong if this is what they believe. Natural disasters and epidemics have fuck-all to do with religion. Furthermore, you could probably only name three or four significant wars that were precipitated by religion, and their death tolls combined would pale in comparison to World War II's alone.

 

[Xemmy]

You mean that age of history that some Medievalists don't even think happened? Or, as is more conventionally held, that period of history that came about more as a result of Roman laziness than Christianity?

Yes, let's pretend THAT was it. Laziness. The Roman empire declined, big deal. Doesn't change the fact that people were killed left and right just because they had the wrong answer to the God question.

Religion has fuck-all to do with the state of compulsory education in America, so I have no clue what you're on about here.

Really. I had to read Unit 5 of my biology book outside of the class because the teacher refused to cover it. It was called- "Evolution".

Are you fucking kidding me?! Religion has done nothing to hinder science's progress. Some religious extremists might not accept its validity or usefulness, but that doesn't mean it has been detrimental to science.

You're serious? You mean aside from not allowing stem cell research, threating a guy that figured out the Earth wasn't flat, and the dozens of other examples?

Wait, didn't you just impute the Dark Ages to religion? So, which is it: does religion make people too accepting of their fate or does it make people too determined to impose their will upon others?

Both. Religion isn't a one trick pony. It can make the worst out of anyone's mind set.

Yes, yes...it's a shame that in liberal democracies, where atheists are given the same civil rights and liberties as everyone else, homosexual persecution is virtually non-existent.

Yes it's a shame Liberal democracies existed everywhere. Oh that's right, they don't. People are executed every God Damned Day In Islamic Countries SIMPLY FOR BEING GAY. Oh and for not being Muslim....

Except Karl Marx saw religion as a tool, not as some destructive force with a will of its own. Underlying religion in Marx's analysis are capital owners who look for every which way to create as wide a margin as possible between the value of workers' labor and their wages.

The Crux of his arguments in the sociology of religion was that humans are best guided by reason. Religion, Marx held, was a significant hindrance to reason, inherently masking the truth and misguiding followers.

Riiight...all priests molest their young congregants. The incidence of child molestation in the Catholic church is no greater than it is in any other Judeo-Christian denomination. Your argument against priests would only work if you thought they should be seen as beacons of morality. However, since your atheism precludes your from seeing them as model citizens, you should find it pretty fucking remarkable that they molest children a hell of a lot less than those who do so out in the secular world.

Riiight...I totally said ALL priests molest their young congregants. Oh that's right I didn't. I said that they do. And that is a fact. It's also a fact the current pope gave orders to cover some up. My argument against preists is that many people DO see them as beacons of morality. Usually their damn congragation. Therefore it is a valid point. And your last point is...well wrong. Why? Because when you give human beings power they tend to abuse. And in case you haven't noticed there are a shit load of Catholic Church Scandals. They have a higher rate of child molestation than the general population. Sure they can't pull of as many, but that's because they are fewer in number. Duh. They still do it at a higher rate.

Oh, and religious people are responsible for the overwhelming majority of world charity. In general, atheists are comparatively lazy and selfish (only those working in academia seem to be the exception to this rule).

What a suprise. Most people are religious. Atheists hold their fair shair of charity too. I know. I see them on youtube every week. We just don't put it under the banner of Christianity. And thank you for telling me what atheists are. Lazy and Selfish. You've pissed off at least 4 people on this thread now for insulting us, and making an unwarranted claim. Good Job!

And your proof that all religious people treat sacred texts as inviolable is where?

Did I say that ALL religious people do?

ONCE again....No. But there are PLENTY that do. I've said it before and this goes for all your claims. I KNOW RELIGION HAS A GOOD SIDE. THAT DOESN'T EXUSE THE OVER WHELMING HORRORS CAUSED IN IT'S NAME.

Yeah, I don't buy this at all. I'd have no problem telling Dawkins, Harris, and Maher that they're flat-out wrong if this is what they believe. Natural disasters and epidemics have fuck-all to do with religion. Furthermore, you could probably only name three or four significant wars that were precipitated by religion, and their death tolls combined would pale in comparison to World War II's alone.

Interesting, I was under the assumtion that we were covering autrocities caused by human beings. I assumed we were all a little smarter than that and were ignoring natural disasters. I assumed wrong. Anyways prepared to be suprised!

The death tole on theism varies. A shit load of atheist websites say 2 billion. They're almost certaintly biased on that.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon

^--You know what that is? It's a list of Religious wars. Adding up the death count brings you to about 800,000,000 deaths.....how many was WW II again?

Now, these results don’t in any way suggest that theism causes people to commit murder, but that the main factor in many of the conflicts in history (123 to be accurate), up until 300 years ago, has been a difference in religious beliefs. Jewish conquest. Islamic conquest. Crusades, Thirty Years of War, French Wars of Religion, Taiping Rebellion, and most other smaller conquests. 66 have involved Islam in paticular. Now with all that, I would say that qualifies religion to be a leading cause of death. Not THE leading cause of death mind you (You tend to take things I say out of context). Just A leading cause of death.

Either way, my history lesson is over. "This Has Been A Journey Through Thought. NOW GO! Feel The Power of Wisdom!"

Please argue over things you actually know about in the future. I'm tired.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I think the bulk of the problem lies with the fact that Christians (who actually GO to church, anyway) are indoctrinated so heavily by their religious leaders about atheists, that they think "atheism" and "person with no morals" can be used interchangeably. The problem is, they can find any "atheist" books to burn, nor can they find any evidence, veiled or not, that atheists have a common goal of spreading hate and violence throughout the world. Whereas, they would have to look no farther than Muslim extremists to spread lies about the entire religion of Islam.

Christians have this problem with pointing fingers at entire religions based on the actions of a few, but are quick to use the same argument when someone mentions the Westboro Baptist Church.

That being said, no, I wouldn't have any problems electing an atheist leader, simply because religion has no place in American politics.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Yes, let's pretend THAT was it. Laziness. The Roman empire declined, big deal. Doesn't change the fact that people were killed left and right just because they had the wrong answer to the God question.

You have the moxie to call me out on not knowing something at the end of your post here, but you start off with this shit?

Hmm...laziness (or, rather lassitude)...who thought that caused the decline of the Roman Empire? Oh, yeah, that's right, Edward Gibbon. You've talked out of your ass throughout the majority of this thread here, so I don't expect you to know who he is, but any person with an inkling of historical knowledge of this time would be able to tell you who he is.

Also, where do you get this idea that people were killed left and right in the name of religion during the transition from the Roman Empire into medieval times? Seriously, man, get your fucking facts straight before you bullshit like this again: historians have long thought that the advent of Christianity caused those within the Roman Empire to care less about their temporal life and care more about their afterlife. This shift in concerns, in turn, allowed barbarians to sack the Roman Empire.

Really. I had to read Unit 5 of my biology book outside of the class because the teacher refused to cover it. It was called- "Evolution".

Judging by your posts in this thread, I seriously doubt that you read. Rather, you just tune into Real Time with Bill Maher and take what he says as gospel. And, yes, YOUR educational situation is the same as everyone else's .

You're serious? You mean aside from not allowing stem cell research, threating a guy that figured out the Earth wasn't flat, and the dozens of other examples?

What dozen other examples? Seriously, man, stop talking out of your ass.

Stem cell research is growing by leaps and bounds in Europe, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that religion is preventing it from being performed. Also, the church's initial rejection of the Copernican view of the universe had everything to do with their unyielding adherence to the Aristotelian view of the universe and nothing to do with what the Bible said. Paradigm shifts in science are always controversial, so religion only indirectly had something to do with that affair, buddy.

Both. Religion isn't a one trick pony. It can make the worst out of anyone's mind set.

If your error-laden research and shit reasoning is the result of your atheism, then I don't give a shit what religion does to anyone's mindset; the outcome can only be better than your mindset.

Yes it's a shame Liberal democracies existed everywhere. Oh that's right, they don't. People are executed every God Damned Day In Islamic Countries SIMPLY FOR BEING GAY. Oh and for not being Muslim....

So? As is your wont, you're taking a few examples, looking at what they have in common, and then generalizing these commonalities to all religious denominations. Your initial argument was that religion hinders human progress, and you have been a resounding failure so far in arguing that point.

The Crux of his arguments in the sociology of religion was that humans are best guided by reason. Religion, Marx held, was a significant hindrance to reason, inherently masking the truth and misguiding followers.

Lulz...did you plagiarize this from atheists.org? Also, one of Marx's predecessors, the father of critical philosophy, Immanuel Kant, argued persuasively that faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive. Even if Marx did make these comments about religion, I'm buying what Kant rather than what Marx says.

Riiight...I totally said ALL priests molest their young congregants. Oh that's right I didn't. I said that they do. And that is a fact. It's also a fact the current pope gave orders to cover some up. My argument against preists is that many people DO see them as beacons of morality. Usually their damn congragation. Therefore it is a valid point. And your last point is...well wrong. Why? Because when you give human beings power they tend to abuse. And in case you haven't noticed there are a shit load of Catholic Church Scandals. They have a higher rate of child molestation than the general population. Sure they can't pull of as many, but that's because they are fewer in number. Duh. They still do it at a higher rate.

Did you just say that you didn't AND did say that all priests molest their young congregants? How can this be? Your posts make the arguments of religious extremists look comparatively well-reasoned.

What a suprise. Most people are religious. Atheists hold their fair shair of charity too. I know. I see them on youtube every week. We just don't put it under the banner of Christianity. And thank you for telling me what atheists are. Lazy and Selfish. You've pissed off at least 4 people on this thread now for insulting us, and making an unwarranted claim. Good Job!

I've probably pissed you off for outing you as an ill-informed and uneducated atheist who thinks that reading atheism blogs and watching youtube videos makes him an expert on religion and violent death, but I don't see how I've pissed anyone else off.

Did I say that ALL religious people do?

ONCE again....No. But there are PLENTY that do. I've said it before and this goes for all your claims. I KNOW RELIGION HAS A GOOD SIDE. THAT DOESN'T EXUSE THE OVER WHELMING HORRORS CAUSED IN IT'S NAME.

You've said that religion is an impediment to the advancement of humanity and that it has done more bad than good. I have shown that your arguments are, at best, poorly-reasoned and and without any substance.

Interesting, I was under the assumtion that we were covering autrocities caused by human beings. I assumed we were all a little smarter than that and were ignoring natural disasters. I assumed wrong. Anyways prepared to be suprised!

The death tole on theism varies. A shit load of atheist websites say 2 billion. They're almost certaintly biased on that.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon

^--You know what that is? It's a list of Religious wars. Adding up the death count brings you to about 800,000,000 deaths.....how many was WW II again?

...
...
...

That website's heading is listed as "Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century," not "A List of All Religious War Casualties." Did you just assume that I wouldn't open up the link and see that you were citing a website that lists all war casualties instead of just those committed in the name of religion?

Either way, my history lesson is over. "This Has Been A Journey Through Thought. NOW GO! Feel The Power of Wisdom!"

Please argue over things you actually know about in the future. I'm tired.

If anything, you have blemished the reputation of atheism in this thread. You know jackshit about history besides what Religulous taught you. Hopefully, atheism's most esteemed advocates aren't as stupid as you are.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

Anonymous Mozzarella has got it right when he mentioned that religion has no place in politics. Why should it matter the religion of our country's leader when their job is to run this place as a successful business, more or less? For anyone to be a good leader, you need to put all subjectivity aside and become the most objective, logical and un-attached person to achieve anything. Having something like religion influence the decisions you make for the country is practically biased and can lead to some skewed outcomes (for better or for worse).

I'd vote for anyone who fits the bill, regardless whether they were an atheist or not. I'd vote for a devout Christian, Atheist, Straight-Edge or even Muslim person: all that matters is if the person who is being considered has the credentials. Hell, the recent Australian election to determine who would be the next Prime Minister showed that Julia Gillard will run the country for the following 3 years, where she openly admitted that she has distanced herself from religion.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Anonymous Mozzarella has got it right when he mentioned that religion has no place in politics. Why should it matter the religion of our country's leader when their job is to run this place as a successful business, more or less? For anyone to be a good leader, you need to put all subjectivity aside and become the most objective, logical and un-attached person to achieve anything. Having something like religion influence the decisions you make for the country is practically biased and can lead to some skewed outcomes (for better or for worse).

Thanks for the name drop, but the bolded part is bothering me a little bit. I can't think of a time where a spiritually-based decision can be good for anyone who's not following in the same spiritual footsteps as the elected leader.

Generally, you have a group of people who oppose most of the ideas that come from a religious perspective, and forcing them to abide by these rules is never a good thing, which is part of the reason why religion has no place in politics. I just don't think there are any good reasons why someone would base their decision of religion when you alienate everyone that doesn't follow your own particular religion.

 

[Mustang Sally]

A few years ago there was a statistic that 70% of Americans said that it was important for The President to have strong faith.

That sounds more like a statement made to be politically correct than something a full 70% of the respondents actually believe in. In other words, the poll question might have been worded something like:

"Do you feel the President should have faith or do you believe he should not have faith?"

At any rate, one of the wisest precepts the Founding Fathers of this country came up with was the separation of church and state. Every Chief Executive seemed to hold to this principle until George W. Bush decided differently.

To each his own, but I admit to being very uncomfortable with a President who makes social, political and economic decisions for the country based on "what God tells him to do."

Therefore, I have no problem voting for an Atheist as Commander in Chief. Just because he (or she) doesn't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't believe in anything. He (or she) might be the most moral person on the list of candidates.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Absolutely, and likely a lot sooner than I'd vote in a theist, because for the most part, the theists we've been subjected to over the last few decades have clung too tightly to their bibles for my taste, which has seemingly loosened their grip on the Constitution and all of it's amendments.

To be honest, though, I'd sooner vote in a party member who refuses to acknowledge his religious affiliations, instead casting them aside in favor of citing that no religious test should be required for public office, no matter how inconspicuous it's delivery or attempt at procurement.

Do atheists have more moral (or amoral) basis than theists? Well, that's a question that's impossible to answer, because a mans faith (or lack thereof) should have very little to do with his morality.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

Thanks for the name drop, but the bolded part is bothering me a little bit. I can't think of a time where a spiritually-based decision can be good for anyone who's not following in the same spiritual footsteps as the elected leader.

Generally, you have a group of people who oppose most of the ideas that come from a religious perspective, and forcing them to abide by these rules is never a good thing, which is part of the reason why religion has no place in politics. I just don't think there are any good reasons why someone would base their decision of religion when you alienate everyone that doesn't follow your own particular religion.

If you speak in the general form, that is exactly the case... but there are some situations when one's spiritual basis dictating a political decision could be considered for the better. Purely from an example, let's say a Buddhist becomes the leader of a powerful country and decides to lean towards solving peace rather than make war to make the world a safer place. Instead of going for the violent solution, why not take the politically-correct way and resolve issues via communications?

There are certain morals and values that is accepted by all religions, thus making it common knowledge and accepted by all... in doing so, having religion being a major factor in these areas can help. But I do see your point as these circumstances are quite rare to find. It's best to separate religion from politics and completely removing it from being a legitimate reason to place a vote for a certain candidate.