Voting For/Against Atheists

[JoeyKnothead]

Let's see if there is any rational, verifiable rhyme or reason to disclude a candidate based on their lack of religion.

Question:
For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

[Goat]

Let's see if there is any rational, verifiable rhyme or reason to disclude a candidate based on their lack of religion.

Question:
For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

Well, there are atheists who I trust. I would not disinclude a political candidate based solely on their lack of religious belief.

Having said that - I probably would not vote an atheist into high office unless I really felt strongly that I knew their intentions... which probably means I wouldn't vote for them since politicians tend to speak with such shallow detail and thick rhetoric.

Generally speaking - I wouldn't trust the atheist not to suppress religion or ignore (or be unsympathetic towards) believers entirely.

There is no moral authority of an atheist to call upon other than their own mind, perspective, passions and desires.

Can you prove your "moral authority" is anything other than the above?

It wouldn't matter if a person's belief in God were a construct of their mind - so long as they believed it wasn't - they are held accountable by their own beliefs.

Aren't all people, atheist or not, held accountable by their own beliefs? Does not society hold people responsible for their actions at least, and aren't actions molded by beliefs?

What ever happened to the concept of 'taking resposniblty for yourself?'?

[chrispalasz]

Aren't all people, atheist or not, held accountable by their own beliefs?

Sure. I think that would be fair to say. The difference, then, between an Atheist and a Christian would be very significant.

An Atheist believes that his own beliefs are his own beliefs. In other words, an Atheist can promote himself to "ultimate authority" so long as he is clever enough to avoid legal trouble.

A Christian, on the other hand, (from the view that God doesn't really exist) would be held accountable by his own beliefs but attribute them to God - thus having a notion that there is no escaping justice.

As I said, the difference is very significant. It's kind of like how businesses put up fake cameras to scare people into behaving because they can't afford to actually monitor everything - or how empty police cars are often parked around any given city in the USA - to scare traffic into slowing down. Otherwise, people speed if they think they an get away with it.

What ever happened to the concept of 'taking resposniblty for yourself?'?

The concept is still around... however, I'm afraid it's proved to be ineffective.

[palmera]

Aren't all people, atheist or not, held accountable by their own beliefs?

Sure. I think that would be fair to say. The difference, then, between an Atheist and a Christian would be very significant.

An Atheist believes that his own beliefs are his own beliefs. In other words, an Atheist can promote himself to "ultimate authority" so long as he is clever enough to avoid legal trouble.

A Christian, on the other hand, (from the view that God doesn't really exist) would be held accountable by his own beliefs but attribute them to God - thus having a notion that there is no escaping justice.

)

Where does Papal infallibility fall into the scheme of things? Talk about "ultimate authority.' Beliefs and practice are two different things. Further, it makes more sense that an atheist, or anyone for that matter, would understand that their authority is derived from the people they lead. Regardless of what form their governance takes, it is ultimately in everyone else that their power resides not in themselves or in a god.

[adamh]

Can guys help me? Im new here and would like to do a survey. I would like people to tell me their real names, what creation they believe in and why. Thanks

[AutomaticJack]

<sarcasm> you don't know what they will do. They have no morals, they might have sex in the oval office, or start a war with lies </sarcasm>

I assume that the first thing every president does is have sex in the oval office! That's not the sort of opportunity a couple gets every day, after all.

But having some open atheists in national positions would be nice. If only because we, atheists, exist and deserve some representation too.

[T-mash]

For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

You mean a candidate that would have to rely on current human knowledge, current human morals and current human intelligence to decide about current human issues? That's preposterous!

[Sir Rhetor]

For those who would reject an atheist candidate for elected office, why would an atheist be unqualified?

Because America is still just as prejudiced, even though it is less visible.

In reality, prejudice is unjustifiable. People try to justify it with the Bible just as they tried with slavery, which just proves that the Bible can be used to manipulate people. This is a good enough reason not to be Christian for me, because I want to be unlike those who bring suffering.