Would you vote for an Atheist? [Archive]

Moros

08-18-2010, 18:39

In Britain, Athiests/Secularists are preferred, because of the cultural significance of viewing religious types mainly as fruitcakes. If an American-style politician did his whole big show-tell about going to church and how god is backing him, and other general nonsense, they would be laughed out of the room as the fool they are.
In Belgium I think both are accepted. Some will have their preference. But all in all, most people don't care wether the prime minister is Catholic, Protestant or Atheist. Though I'm sure it would get controversial if he was to be Islamic. Strangely the wikipedia entry: quoted some research saying that most americans would prefer someone of Islamic believe over an Atheist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists).

Either way the poll currently is showing more what I expected.

gaelic cowboy

08-18-2010, 19:17

I said yes but really I would vote for the best politician or at least the least worst one

spmetla

08-18-2010, 19:22

Yes, of course I would, I should probably add that I am an atheist too. Of course policies would be the deciding factor, not the belief system or lack there of.

Lemur

08-18-2010, 19:23

I think I already have, multiple times. How many politicians are genuinely religious? Very few, I would imagine. And their genuineness is probably in an inverse relationship with their public religiosity.

GeneralHankerchief

08-18-2010, 19:30

Depends on how annoying about it they are. Over-the-top in-your-face atheism pisses me off just as much as over-the-top in-your-face Christianity or any other religion. Nobody cares, start talking about issues that matter.

Rhyfelwyr

08-18-2010, 20:03

In Britain, Athiests/Secularists are preferred, because of the cultural significance of viewing religious types mainly as fruitcakes. If an American-style politician did his whole big show-tell about going to church and how god is backing him, and other general nonsense, they would be laughed out of the room as the fool they are.

Well Tony Blair did feel the need to do a Charles II and pretend to be Anglican while in office.

And that's just thinking about England. A lot of MP's in Scotland are religious, and it crosses over the parties. The Catholic Church pushes its agendas through the Labour Party, the Tories have ties with Unionism and the Orange Order, one caused controversy in refusing a gay couples access to his B&B, and the SNP had one councillor who recently called all gays sad people and said atheists were all going to burn in hell.

And that's without going into Northern Ireland, where they have a lot of very hardline Ian Paisley-esque Presbyterians, and some guys that have pretty quirky ideas (that they are descended from the 10 lost tribes of Israel etc).

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

08-18-2010, 20:20

I would if I agree with he/she.

:idea2:

Centurion1

08-18-2010, 20:38

it doesnt matter to me and im a serious roman catholic.

however i cannot stand the stereotypical psuedo intellectual militant atheists.

id probably assasinate one of those suckers.

Monk

08-18-2010, 20:46

The religion of a politician is the very last thing on my mind when I go to vote, right after "What am I gonna make for dinner tonight?"

Seamus Fermanagh

08-18-2010, 21:25

Their personal religious beliefs are far less relevant than policy related and leadership related factors.

ajaxfetish

08-18-2010, 22:28

Absolutely. I don't think religion should be an important factor in choosing elected officials. On the other hand, if they were to enact an anti-religion policy, that would change things.

Ajax

Beskar

08-18-2010, 22:59

I will change my post slightly.

I have no trouble with politicians who have been to church, or was raised religious.

However, if they start talking about how god is choosing them to be president, homosexuals burn in hell and promoting creationism, I want them out of that office, asap. I have no time for non-intellectual nonsense.

If some one however goes, "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I understand the importance of homosexual rights and no problems with them adopting", that people gets some serious +rep from me. As they know what is important is not their own personal beliefs, but for the benefit of everyone as a whole.

Moros

08-19-2010, 00:59

only one voted no. Perhaps then indeed the problem isn't really all that in the west. But then again if we hold the same poll in the bible belt...

Seamus Fermanagh

08-19-2010, 04:27

However, if they start talking about how god is choosing them to be president, homosexuals burn in hell and promoting creationism, I want them out of that office, asap. I have no time for non-intellectual nonsense.

Some of a more fundamentalist approach to religion might find this offensive, Beskar, and it was not necessary to your point to take the shot.

Beskar

08-19-2010, 04:44

Some of a more fundamentalist approach to religion might find this offensive, Beskar, and it was not necessary to your point to take the shot.

Though, being honest, if they think Saying they are God's Champion for the Election. Telling people to burn in Hell, and think Creationism belongs in Science class....

Me = :shrug:

It is nonsense, and it is arguably even exploition of Christian values.

Jesus taught to love your neighbour, I doubt that falls under telling people they are going to burn in hell. Also man has no right to judge, judgement is reserved right of the father in Heaven, only he may judge who goes to heaven and who does no.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Jesus praises the meek, he doesn't want people showing off their charity donations and using the Lord names in vain as his false champions.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

As for the Creation, it is a Story written by man, showing how God created the world. There is even seven different versions of it in Judaism. If the religion they took it from had seven different versions, what makes them think the one they have is the correct one? What does it have to do with Science?

I can even give a Christian ideological answer to why they are phonies and should be cast down from Office and I can give a non-religious answer to why as well. They are phonies, frauds and abusers of religion.

pevergreen

08-19-2010, 04:52

Apparently we've got out first Atheist PM.

Too bad I don't like her.

a completely inoffensive name

08-19-2010, 05:21

As an atheist: yes. But I really couldn't give a **** if she/he has **** policies. And Lemur is right in that many politicians are probably fakes in regards to religion. That might change though, since 2007 we have had our first self recognized atheist in Congress.

Askthepizzaguy

08-19-2010, 06:33

Being irreligious myself, I would probably consider it a mark in their favor, much the same way people of one religion tend to favor people of that religion. This person would probably represent my viewpoint more closely, and especially as it relates to public policy, take no religious approach whatsoever, and oppose religious influence on policy.

However there would certainly be non-religious people I wouldn't vote for. It's not my top priority.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 07:58

I would never vote for a non-atheistremoved.

Furunculus

08-19-2010, 08:23

I live in a different western country and YES

miotas

08-19-2010, 09:39

Different 'western' country and YES, but not because they are Atheist, religion has no bearing on who I choose.

rory_20_uk

08-19-2010, 09:59

The religion doesn't, but it might influence the policies that one comes up with.

E.G. I would vote for a Christian, but not one that was campaigning on banning all trading on Sundays / pogrom against gays / compulsory Church on Sundays for example.

~:smoking:

Wishazu

08-19-2010, 11:31

I would vote for an Athiest, I don't have anything against them as I am one myself. Not many politicians here in the UK are really outspoken about there personal beliefs or lack thereof so I don't know whether I have voted for a religious person or not in the past.

I have to admit though that finding out Nick Clegg was an Athiest a few weeks before the election was a deciding factor in my voting Lib Dem.

Skullheadhq

08-19-2010, 13:53

banning all trading on Sundays

Why not? This is very good to protect small businesses against big corporations.

rory_20_uk

08-19-2010, 14:12

Skullheadhq

08-19-2010, 14:22

I'd rather increase consumer choice than force me into not doing any shopping on one of the two days in a week that I get off.

Small businesses can hire staff just as any other enterprise can.

~:smoking:

Sunday staff is more expansive and many small businesses cannot afford it, big businesses can so people will shop there for the rest of the week as well, small business loses customers and goes bankrupt. Things are not as simple as they seem.

Rhyfelwyr

08-19-2010, 14:46

Noooo! Atheists telling Christians what to believe, my pet peeve of all time. This is as bad as that thread where atheists said women shouldn't wear the burka because it's no in the koran. :furious3:

Jesus taught to love your neighbour, I doubt that falls under telling people they are going to burn in hell. Also man has no right to judge, judgement is reserved right of the father in Heaven, only he may judge who goes to heaven and who does no.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

First of, Jesus regulalry told people himself that they were going to "burn in hell". And as John said, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), so no that right isn't reserved to the father.

Furthermore, Matthew 7:1 is the verse most commonly taken out of context in the whole Bible. Although you did at least show the next bit, where he says sort yourself out, and then you can admonish your brother! That requires judgment. Paul himself was happy to use his judgment, as he wrote "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed" (1 Cor 5:3).

Jesus praises the meek, he doesn't want people showing off their charity donations and using the Lord names in vain as his false champions.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Being meek in spirit has nothing to do with your temporal power. Otherwise we should discard every said by Moses, David, and half the Old Testament characters! The point is they got where they were by trusting in God and not in their own strenght, hence why God always chooses the younger son as with Isaac and then Jacob etc, to show that they only get what the achieve by his power, not their own strength.

As for the Creation, it is a Story written by man, showing how God created the world. There is even seven different versions of it in Judaism. If the religion they took it from had seven different versions, what makes them think the one they have is the correct one? What does it have to do with Science?

A better question would be what does "science" have to do with this thread?

rory_20_uk

08-19-2010, 15:07

Sunday staff is more expansive and many small businesses cannot afford it, big businesses can so people will shop there for the rest of the week as well, small business loses customers and goes bankrupt. Things are not as simple as they seem.

I am aware of that. I'm not prepared to have my life dictated to me by government merely to prop up small shops.

If things were all open on Sunday, the cost of employees would not be greater.

~:smoking:

rory_20_uk

08-19-2010, 15:10

Noooo! Atheists telling Christians what to believe, my pet peeve of all time. This is as bad as that thread where atheists said women shouldn't wear the burka because it's no in the koran. :furious3:

First of, Jesus regulalry told people himself that they were going to "burn in hell". And as John said, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), so no that right isn't reserved to the father.

Furthermore, Matthew 7:1 is the verse most commonly taken out of context in the whole Bible. Although you did at least show the next bit, where he says sort yourself out, and then you can admonish your brother! That requires judgment. Paul himself was happy to use his judgment, as he wrote "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed" (1 Cor 5:3).

Being meek in spirit has nothing to do with your temporal power. Otherwise we should discard every said by Moses, David, and half the Old Testament characters! The point is they got where they were by trusting in God and not in their own strenght, hence why God always chooses the younger son as with Isaac and then Jacob etc, to show that they only get what the achieve by his power, not their own strength.

A better question would be what does "science" have to do with this thread?

OK from the beginning... you can't quote the bible like it is fact. Merely as one person is written down as saying something at some point in some versions does not make it a reliable document.

~:smoking:

Quid

08-19-2010, 15:39

On the one hand, I could not care less what denomination (or non-denomination) a person running for public office has. On the other, I very much prefer someone running for office that has no connection to religion (i.e. an atheist). I do not believe that one can entirely ignore one's beliefs because they will invariably have some influence on the decison-making process.

Quid

Skullheadhq

08-19-2010, 15:41

I am aware of that. I'm not prepared to have my life dictated to me by government merely to prop up small shops.

If things were all open on Sunday, the cost of employees would not be greater.

~:smoking:

People don't like working in the weekends, and will charge more, something small businesses without employees will not survive, or do these shopowners have to work 365 days in the week 24 hours a day just because you hate it when shops are closed on Sunday? There is something called a personal life, and you give them the choise between personal life and bankrupcy or work forever.

rory_20_uk

08-19-2010, 15:52

Or hire other people. I thought there's a shortage of jobs at the moment. Other family members? Shift system?

I work 8 hours a day and commute 5. I need to shop at the weekend - it's when I have my personal life.

If others are prepared to prop up inefficient shops as they're cute then fine. I'm not.

~:smoking:

The Celtic Viking

08-19-2010, 15:52

Rory can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that when he said he'd be against banning all trade on Sundays, he said it in the context of religious reasons (in this case, not working on the sabbath). Arguing for banning it in secular terms is thus a red herring.

I voted "Europe and Yes".

Skullheadhq

08-19-2010, 15:56

Or hire other people. I thought there's a shortage of jobs at the moment. Other family members? Shift system?

Did you miss the part where I said this is way too expansive for a one-man shop and that wages on Sunday are higher?
And is your uncle/niece/nephew preperared to work on sunday for a wage way lower than the local superstore who will give him more?

Monk

08-19-2010, 15:57

Noooo! Atheists telling Christians what to believe, my pet peeve of all time. This is as bad as that thread where atheists said women shouldn't wear the burka because it's no in the koran. :furious3:

You can believe whatever you like, the concepts of "belief" and "faith" exist outside of testable environments to the point that you do not have to prove anything to anyone in order to believe something. When you start demanding others to take your belief as the truth with no attempt or intent to present verifiable facts that back up your claim, that's where the situation gets a little tricky.

The question presented by this thread was simple, and infered a basic understanding of a hypothetical situation that I found fairly obvious. I answered the OP's question in regards to whether or not i'd vote for an atheist, not whether or not i'd vote for an extremist.

rory_20_uk

08-19-2010, 16:03

Did you miss the part where I said this is way too expansive for a one-man shop and that wages on Sunday are higher?

:Sigh: In short: I'm not for subsidising every business that otherwise would not otherwise function. You going to give jute farmers a helping hand as it's not a suitable crop for the UK?

And finally, as Celtic Viking points out, this is utterly a red herring that I was using as an example of things I would be against having forced through due to religion. As it happens I'd be against some regardless of religion.

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

08-19-2010, 16:26

OK from the beginning... you can't quote the bible like it is fact. Merely as one person is written down as saying something at some point in some versions does not make it a reliable document.

~:smoking:

I was working with the axiom that the person listening would be a Christian, and accept the authority of the Bible (since Beskar was appealing on those grounds himself). If you work from that axiom, you can prove that certian ideas/doctrines/whatever are false from a Christian perspective.

You can believe whatever you like, the concepts of "belief" and "faith" exist outside of testable environments to the point that you do not have to prove anything to anyone in order to believe something. When you start demanding others to take your belief as the truth with no attempt or intent to present verifiable facts that back up your claim, that's where the situation gets a little tricky.

The question presented by this thread was simple, and infered a basic understanding of a hypothetical situation that I found fairly obvious. I answered the OP's question in regards to whether or not i'd vote for an atheist, not whether or not i'd vote for an extremist.

Not sure what you're saying here but I've no intention to force my beliefs on anybody, nor am I "demanding" anyone accept's them. All I did was say I would be more likely to vote for someone who shares my outlook on things, and then pointed out why Beskar's interpretation of the scripture was (IMO) wrong.

Monk

08-19-2010, 16:37

Not sure what you're saying here but I've no intention to force my beliefs on anybody, nor am I "demanding" anyone accept's them. All I did was say I would be more likely to vote for someone who shares my outlook on things, and then pointed out why Beskar's interpretation of the scripture was (IMO) wrong.

I didn't intend to imply you were doing anything of the sort. I was simply adding a bit of pittance on my interpretation of his (Beskar's) original point, which ties back to the original focus of the thread.

Cute Wolf

08-19-2010, 17:00

My country isn't muslim one :wink:, merely secular with a lot of muslims. But that's right, wahhabi muslims try to steal every rights from non muslims, especially atheists.

That anti atheists laws are enacted because political sentiments, as you can read in history, our founding fathers was dominated by secular muslims, christians, and atheists (stupid wahabi leaders can't got neither a lot of support nor diplomatic recognisement that time), and atheists in particular, are the one who spearhead the press for democracy (christians and secular muslims mostly only follows... Honestly). To curb their critical views of the governments, soeharto ban atheism. Simple.

Beskar

08-19-2010, 17:26

You can believe whatever you like, the concepts of "belief" and "faith" exist outside of testable environments to the point that you do not have to prove anything to anyone in order to believe something. When you start demanding others to take your belief as the truth with no attempt or intent to present verifiable facts that back up your claim, that's where the situation gets a little tricky.

Actually, that sums up my point far better. My examples were of when religious people are use their own religious justifications, such as enforcing the Bibles version of Creationism in a Science class, when there is no demonstrational evidence that this happened.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-20-2010, 04:28

OK from the beginning... you can't quote the bible like it is fact. Merely as one person is written down as saying something at some point in some versions does not make it a reliable document.

He didn't. He quoted it as the Bible. His interpretation of scripture so cited and the life lessons he drew therefrom were pretty doctrinaire. You are free to draw as much or as little from his points as you wish. Instead, you attack a text from which you know he draws a good deal of moral inspiration and lessons in living. A needless shot. You could simply have noted that you do not have the same faith in that text the Rhyf has and therefore choose your own path.

rory_20_uk

08-20-2010, 09:23

He didn't. He quoted it as the Bible. His interpretation of scripture so cited and the life lessons he drew therefrom were pretty doctrinaire. You are free to draw as much or as little from his points as you wish. Instead, you attack a text from which you know he draws a good deal of moral inspiration and lessons in living. A needless shot. You could simply have noted that you do not have the same faith in that text the Rhyf has and therefore choose your own path.

It's a public forum. He chose to publicly quote and share his views and so did I. I'm not gate-crashing a service air my views to others.

Merely that one person likes something does not mean other views are censored and the individual punished - well not at the moment in the UK.

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

~:smoking:

Askthepizzaguy

08-20-2010, 14:21

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

~:smoking:

I'm not, though. I'm a small, petty man. When people disagree with me it frightens and confuses me. Why can't they accept that I'm awesome?

rory_20_uk

08-20-2010, 14:30

To the FRONTROOM!!! ~;)

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

08-20-2010, 15:31

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

~:smoking:

Yes, but I prefer it when people make a reply that is relevant to what I am discussing.

I know you don't accept the authority of the Bible, but why come and point that out when two people are discussing something from a scriptural perspective? It's not like we're hearing some shocking new insight that is going to make us abandon the scripture in the middle of the argument.

It's like two people having a complicated discussion on the consequences of quantum theory, only for some guy to come and point out, "Hey guys, quantum theory is dubious!*". It's not really helpful for what they were discussing.

* I am not very aware of quantum theory so don't flame me if I'm wrong, 'tis just a hypothetical example

rory_20_uk

08-20-2010, 15:36

Ah, so you decide relevance? I'm more than happy for you two to swop psalms from the KJ Bible by PM if that's better.

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

08-20-2010, 15:46

Ah, so you decide relevance? I'm more than happy for you two to swop psalms from the KJ Bible by PM if that's better.

~:smoking:

Yes, I do decide on relevance, since I am once against using my magical quality for people to not address what I am saying, that I mentioned in the secularism thread. As I said, talking about the authority of the Bible is irrelevant when two people have agreed to work on that axiom.

I mean, what does the numbering of the psalms have to do with anything? I guess you are referring to the fact that as a Catholic, Seamus' Bible will number them differently from my KJV? The whole division of the Bible into chapters and verses is artificial, it makes them easier to reference, so what?

rory_20_uk

08-20-2010, 15:53

Rhyfelwyr

08-20-2010, 16:11

And there's different things in those two bibles - and they are very similar Christian ones. The Coptic bible has some very different number of books.

But then you head on to the subject of the Apocrypha and related non-canonical texts. Suddenly the rock solid precept is less absolute.

~:smoking:

We're pretty much on the same ground, at least with western Christianity. It might have become an issue if someone quoted from Maccabees, but that was always unlikely. Certainly, it was of no relevance to the discussion Beskar and myself were having, since we were discussing the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.

rory_20_uk

08-20-2010, 16:16

Rhyfelwyr

08-20-2010, 17:33

Although |I can't claim to have read all the other Gospels in total, I think that they are very enlightening. To imagine that in c. 200 years only 4 gospel documents were written strikes me as highly implausible, and as we know that is not the case.

Then when one considers when the Bible was made canonical (more hundreds of years afterwards) it quickly becomes evident that it was early church politics rather than any other factor that is in play.

~:smoking:

But again, where is the relevance in that to what Beskar and myself were discussing? Certainly, all mainstream Christians today accept the same 4 Gospels as authoritative, and have done so for well over a millenia. We were working within that framework.

Also, the "church politics" stuff is mostly conspiracy theories, usually based around the Council of Nicea in 325, despite the fact that that council had nothing to do with drawing up the canon. I have no idea why people so commonly think the canon was drawn up at Nicea, but it happened at Hippo in 393. It was really just the consolidation of what was commonly accepted throughout the Christian world.

No conspiracy, no power politics. In fact, there's even a verse in one of Paul's Epistles which suggests they were accepted as scripture on part with the Old Testament while he was still alive!

Tellos Athenaios

08-21-2010, 01:56

Why not? This is very good to protect small businesses against big corporations.

Banning all trade on Sundays has less to do with “protecting small businesses against big corporations” than with “we are Christian. Once, we forced that through and now we are going to hold on to it until Judgment Day if we can.” At least in the UK “but it costs money to be open on Sundays/people want more money to work on Sundays” has nothing at all to do with it, plenty of small village (say, Pluckley in Kent) shops *are* open on Sundays in a commuter region. The same kind of shops which are open from early in the morning till late at night (6:00 - 23:00 or so) on a week day, too. And these shops aren't exactly large, or busy.

As long as shops over here need not stay open from 6 to 23 for to remain profitable I'm not feeling any sympathy for the “need protection from big corporations” kind of argument. To me, the only argument for keeping the ban is a purely religious/lifestyle one; which is a decision of a kind that shop-owners themselves should be free to make, and perhaps a municipality too, but definitely not a central government.