1 of 5
1
Would you vote for an atheist Prez candidate?
Posted: 07 July 2012 02:23 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

I ran across this Yahoo article, didn’t see the broadcast, but still. . . . . wtf is she thinking?


http://www.rootschat.com/links/0ojg/


Per S.E. Cupp (a perported atheist): “I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here… Atheists don’t have that.”


Does that statement make sense coming from a person who supposedly does not believe there is anyone “above him” to address? She’s saying it’s better/safer to have a leader who ascribes to myth. Do you agree?


Honestly, when I first spotted the headline of the article, I assumed her position was going to be that it’s safer to have a religious leader due to the fact that we deal with so many other religious leaders, or something along those lines. . . but this?


p.s. Warm greetings to all my old pals on the forum : )

[ Edited: 07 July 2012 02:39 AM by Mia]
 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2012-07-10

Excellent find on “moderatism”

Nobody in their right mind should submit to anyone claiming to thank the spaghettimonster every night.(...)

Nonsense to go out with the trash (...)

Glad to see another “unsalted” comment like this .

 

 

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 07:38 AM by thatsfinal]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  500
Joined  2005-02-22

Greetings, Ms. Mia.

The party rages on at the Project-Reason Forum. There’s always a table for you.

 Signature 

Delude responsibly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 05:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-04-29

Hmm..only in America.

Amazing the inconsistencies really. Mitt Romney. Great man of the people. Perfect guy to have his finger on the nuclear button and responsibility for the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Not a job for someone who would ever think illogically.

But wait…this guy has a life steering belief based on the ramblings of a known criminal, fraudster, and philanderer in the person of Joseph Smith, who just happened one day to be visited by the angel Moroni (note coincidence of names ‘mormon’, moroni’, and ‘moron’  - coincidence?), gets given some sacred plates, which then conveniently become reclaimed by said angel.

Yep…only in America!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2012 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  106
Joined  2012-01-09

I would vote for an atheist president over a theist president because the former is probably less delusional, and more respectful of human life.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2012 11:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26

I would most definitely vote for an atheist for any office.

Furthermore, I think we’ve already had a couple of atheist presidents. It just isn’t politically expedient to let on that one doesn’t buy in to the national delusion. So sad really.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  413
Joined  2005-06-05

She may, sadly, have a point.  This forum has proven to me how deeply rude and intolerant too many of my fellow non-believers can be.  I do suspect that it’s mainly the ‘sausage fest’ effect and as more women post, we’ll see a better quality of discourse.

I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to assume, though, that faith or the lack of it in any way indicates whether a candidate possesses a decent level of humility.  In fact, I’d be willing to wager a large sum of money that the mere desire to run for President of the United States of America indicates an above average level of hubris.  Just comes with the territory.  The real question then becomes, does this person have the self-awareness and sense of duty to keep it in check?  If the past is an indicator (duh), then, all other things being equal, I have to vote for the non-believer.

 Signature 

The road of excess leads to the palace of Wisedom
-William Blake, “Proverbs of Hell”

Life, what is it but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll, “A boat Beneath a Sunny Sky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 10:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-04-29
rabbit - 01 August 2012 10:19 AM

She may, sadly, have a point.  This forum has proven to me how deeply rude and intolerant too many of my fellow non-believers can be.  I do suspect that it’s mainly the ‘sausage fest’ effect and as more women post, we’ll see a better quality of discourse.

I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to assume, though, that faith or the lack of it in any way indicates whether a candidate possesses a decent level of humility.  In fact, I’d be willing to wager a large sum of money that the mere desire to run for President of the United States of America indicates an above average level of hubris.  Just comes with the territory.  The real question then becomes, does this person have the self-awareness and sense of duty to keep it in check?  If the past is an indicator (duh), then, all other things being equal, I have to vote for the non-believer.

This post really does have me puzzled. ‘Rude’, ‘intolerant’? Where in this tiny series of posts over a period of nearly a month do you get this from? I posted a provocative, comment about the possible future president of the US with a view to establishing whether there was any life whatever in this forum and, sadly, my impression that it is pretty well dead in the water would appear vindicated. A pity really. Sam Harris is a good author and, though no Christopher Hitchens, he deserves a place where he can be properly debated. And incidentally if it’s rude and intolerant you’re looking for then just go to your average religious site.


My post did have a serious side, however. It’s all very well saying be tolerant of our believer friends but many, including Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, argue that the tolerance of moderate religion is the cauldron within which extremists are produced. We are all of us surrounded by, and friends with, people who hold religious beliefs of one sort or another, and the rules of society ensure that, in the main, we tolerate these people. But this tolerarance has limits. If a physicist claims to be a believer then he will not attempt to give evidence of his belief, he will simply say ‘it’s a matter of faith’. He won’t argue it or defend it other than in these terms. But it’s different when people have more extreme views and, I’m afraid, mormonism is just that; extreme. Not perhaps in the way that we normally use the word in relation, say, to islamic suicide bombers; more in the nature of the belief, as I stated in my earlier post. The possible future president of the US holds these views and they are crazy. This isn’t intolerance; it’s a statement of fact to almost all thinking people. So if a person can believe this nonsense in one compartment of his life, why should he be trusted to make sound judgement in other respects, no matter how politically astute he has been up to that point.


I can agree that hubris is inevitable for any candidate for a job like president. As you say, it goes with the territory. As for voting for a non-believer - you’re never going to know the answer to that one as no potential candidate is going to admit it. But as one poster pointed out, it’s highly likely that many ex-presidents were not really believers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2012 06:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  413
Joined  2005-06-05

I see you’re new here, travelingman, and, if you glance at my member status, you’ll see that I’m not.  My general comment about the forum had nothing in particular to do with this thread.
I skimmed most of the posts, so I really hadn’t read yours.  Notice I didn’t speak directly to any posters and included no one’s name.  I was responding to the article in the original post by Mia.

 Signature 

The road of excess leads to the palace of Wisedom
-William Blake, “Proverbs of Hell”

Life, what is it but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll, “A boat Beneath a Sunny Sky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2012 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-04-29
rabbit - 02 August 2012 06:22 AM

I see you’re new here, travelingman, and, if you glance at my member status, you’ll see that I’m not.  My general comment about the forum had nothing in particular to do with this thread.
I skimmed most of the posts, so I really hadn’t read yours.  Notice I didn’t speak directly to any posters and included no one’s name.  I was responding to the article in the original post by Mia.

Thanks for the response rabbit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

I would hope noboby would vote for a candidate based on a single issue.  If Mao or Stalin (both supposedly atheists but anti-reason) were running for any office I wouldn’t vote for them.  Being atheist doesn’t automatically imply pro-reason and technical skill and expertise in anything.  The majority of atheists I know are mystics and believe in lots of supernatural crap,  just not Christianity.  Telling me what you DON’T believe in doesn’t let me know what you DO believe in.  It’s pretty irrelevant.  I have to look at the whole picture.  Yes,  I would love to vote for a non-mystical, pro-reason presidential candidate.  Right now Gary Johnson is the only one who comes close.  He has said he will not mention ‘god’ if elected and he will stop the war on drugs among other things.  I would feel better knowing that our president doesn’t talk to an invisisible man, whom, if he did exist, would rank highest as the most evil tyrant ever known!!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26

Yes, atheism is just one issue. I’d want to see the candidate’s stand on all the issues, but I won’t lie and say it wouldn’t influence me. It would, positively, unlike Ms Cupp who I really, really want to go “no true scotsman” on her ass real, real bad. Why on EARTH would any sane person want their leader to give a whatupdude to the invisible man upstairs every night??? I think she wants a humble leader. But, who’s more humble than someone who doesn’t think the entire universe was created just for them???

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-08-08

Cupp severely undermines her own belief system with this inane statement, and is guilty of doing what most conservatives, if not many on the left, do when vetting potential candidates; i.e. making religious belief the first litmus test. A principled non-believer would look at nothing but issues important to them, and I cannot see how a belief in an entity that she supposedly thinks is nonexistent somehow automatically qualifies one as the leader of free world just because a large percentage of the populace would prefer a President of “faith”.

An atheist has virtually zero chance of ever getting elected to high office in the US. Not during this time, and not during my life (I’m 45). AM I wrong to feel like Cupp is actually shirking her moral duty as free thinker to not vote for an atheist candidate that, all else being equal, she might find agreeable? To me, she betrays the idea that the world would be better off without religion. Maybe she doesn’t feel that way, either. Which begs the question… is she truly an atheist?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Regarding Cupp, what’s the mystery?  Why ponder an inconsistent hypocritical non-thinker?  Again, most athiests I meet are mystics.  Let’s stop using the term.  It’s absolutely meaningless.  There’s about as much reason and rational discussion on this board as any occult or fundamentalist christian board.  I RARELY see any significant difference between so-called atheists (especially ‘secular humanists’- christians that reject Jesus) and the religionists.  They both embrace mystical concepts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2012-08-08

How do define mystic?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26

Yes, mormovies, how are you defining mystic? I don’t believe in anything supernatural, nor do any other atheist that I know. I know some non-christian but religious people who are very into what I can mystical thinking—crystals, tarot, numerology, etc. etc. etc.

I haven’t read every single post on this website but have read quite a few and I don’t get a “mystical vibe” off of any of the self-described atheists on this site. Can you give some examples??

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 5
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed