Jesse Ventura Shares Surprising Poll Results: Would You Elect An Atheist As President?

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: nwtrucker

"If one believes in religion, they are likely to use it as an excuse for their own bad behavior."

I'd vote for the atheist, all things being equal. I wouldn't vote for a militant activist atheist, as you described however.

i wouldnt vote for a militant ANYTHING.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't know about "more morally sound," but I will say this.... The non-believers I know and associate with are highly moral people because their ideals -- hard fought and won -- shape their moral architecture. The problem with some religious people is that they believe their religious belief give them a free-pass to act like barbarians, and seek forgiveness later. Those whose moral underpinning are derived from reason maintain no escape hatch. They either act toward their ideals, or they fail absolutely.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yet we keep electing evangelicals to various offices throughout the nation. One is reminded of the statistics on cell phone use while driving. 85% claim they never text while driving, while 95% claim to see other people do it.

Certainly you or I would *never* vote for a militant theist or atheist, but nevertheless -- militant theists are elected time and again across the nation, and few admit to casting their votes based on the candidate's religion.

It can't be for their ideals. It's been nearly 40 years since any candidate for office possessed those.

originally posted by: Pluginn
I do believe in what's good and I do believe god is good and i'm sure there is more then then eye see's. Proving that is something else.

I'm not the one who's going to disbelieve you, I'm agnostic

I also "know" there's something else, I've also seen "proof", but I still don't see how that something else proves the existence of a creator God and validates any religion. We could never truly explain the unexplained with some sort of God, it's like cutting it short and giving up on finding the real truth.

Why must there me a creator? If there is a creator then he must have been created...you'll say that God always existed. Sure, then why can't existence, always have existed?
What real differences could we see, could we understand trough our limited understanding of the universe.

There is no way that I will arrive in an afterlife and believe everything I'm told or everything I wanna be told. Whoever's on the other side, rest assure they know the place, the rules and the "truth" a lot more than we do.
Who knows what there intentions are? It's so easy making others inferior beings believe that you are a creator.

The quest for truth is never ending...like William Cooper said : "Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless
you can prove it in your own research."

I'm afraid that religions and beliefs could be like computer trojans on our souls to easily sway them after death. It seems that everyone who had those unique moments of connection with some sort of God, they always say what THEY believed in.
That, for me, is a big BS sign right there. It's too good to be true...

originally posted by: theMediator
If there is a creator then he must have been created...you'll say that God always existed. Sure, then why can't existence, always have existed?
What real differences could we see, could we understand trough our limited understanding of the universe.

Why must He have been created?
An omnipresent existence does not preclude a creator.
I ask and say these things specifically because of our limited understanding of the universe.

a reply to: JesseVentura

At this point I would be willing to vote for any type of ist if I thought they were focused on the root of various problems, and realistic plans to solve the problems.

I don't think it would happen though as you can't really convey those type of problems and solutions in snappy quick sound bites. Meaning you just lost half the voters who rely on the sound bites and the other half of voters would debate it.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't know about "more morally sound," but I will say this.... The non-believers I know and associate with are highly moral people because their ideals -- hard fought and won -- shape their moral architecture. The problem with some religious people is that they believe their religious belief give them a free-pass to act like barbarians, and seek forgiveness later. Those whose moral underpinning are derived from reason maintain no escape hatch. They either act toward their ideals, or they fail absolutely.

I agree with you. Most atheist do believe in the evolved moral code of doing no harm to others.

But just as the religious do harm in the name of their God, atheists have been known to do harm in the name of political ideology.

Psychopaths who have lead Genocide have come from many religious factions and atheists. The problem is when facisist try to impose their laws or theocratic views on people through tyranny.

Plato said that people will reject laws even if they might be good for them, if they believe the laws are being forced upon them. People don't like unexpected changes which is why democracy is far better than tyranny.

Unfortunately most of this world's leaders are not philosophers so they must resort to tyranny. Which often times comes at the cost of genocide regardless of faith.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

But just as the religious do harm in the name of their God, atheists have been known to do harm in the name of political ideology.

You want to explain that?

Please.

Honestly to me as long as they aren't corrupt from what we have seen before, and have the best interest in heart for the people of this nation as well as the world when it comes to world economics then sure.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You lost me at imaginary friend.

But it shouldn't matter who is in office so long as they don't impose their belief or non belief on others.

Or try to deride their constituents...
Like claiming we have imaginary friends.

Agree with that completely, we have different views and differeing faiths obviously as many are aware

However we do hold our faiths as central to who we are, how we go about our lives and how we treat others.

That should never be belittled by someone in office.

That being said, I WOULD elect an atheist if their principles were in line with mine

Religion doesnt have a monopoly on whats right or wrong, if their moral compass was strong? yep

originally posted by: Isurrender73

But just as the religious do harm in the name of their God, atheists have been known to do harm in the name of political ideology.

originally posted by: Annee
You want to explain that?

Please.

Here are some genocidal atheists for you.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot

I'm a skeptical agnostic, but I describe myself as "always seeking gnosis." I also believe ardently in freedom of religion.

Therefore my answer would be: an atheist per se, yes. I have no problems with atheism or theism alike. What I care about are the conduct, character, philosophy, and intent of the candidate. (Even platform is less important to me than those factors, as platforms and strategies can change with malleable circumstances.)

If the individual had a history of anti-religious rhetoric though, or was an advocate of curtailing religious freedom in any way, would give me serious pause. I understand and respect atheism, but I don't agree with the position that religion in and of itself is a threat to humanity and should be eliminated, which I have seen some espouse.

An atheist who lives and lets live (of which I have been privileged to know many,) if everything else was in order, I would happily vote for. Just as a theist who lives and lets live (several of which I have also been privileged to know) with governance ideals I agreed with, would have my vote.

Of much greater concern and importance to me, is the fact that it is a cold day in hell under a blue moon with pigs flying across the sky when I find a candidate whose ideals I can agree with enough to want to support them with my vote in the first place, irrespective of their theological convictions.

Peace.

originally posted by: Konduit
I think atheism is just as backwards as any religion.

It is indeed; because it's just another "ism". An atheist can no more outright disprove the existence of an omni entity creator, than a god-botherer can prove such a fanciful notion.

The thing, however, is that the preponderance of evidence points to the notion of a "God" to be false. And, given "God" gave everyone their brains, in which exists the faculty of logic and rationale, to believe in such a concept is effectively rejecting "God" in order to qualify embracing "Him"!

To say nothing of the incongruity of an incomprehensibly omni-everything entity being concerned with petty matters of worship and adherence to arbitrary edicts attributed to "Him" by pismires; finials of the torture device used in "His" apparent son's demise adorning buildings; infant cock-skins offered up to "Him" as a form of primordial sacrificial reverence... et al..

There is lots of evidence that MAN created god there is NO evidence that god created MAN

a reply to: JesseVentura

Yes, I would vote for an atheist for President of the US. I've already voted for Christians and a Jew for the presidency, so why not? And I might vote for a second Jew if Bernie gets the Dem nomination, otherwise I'll probably vote for a far left independent candidate.

However, I would not vote for an anti-theist or an anti-Islam candidate. I care about specific policies and initiatives, and as long as the candidate is actively pushing for the things I care for, I would vote for them (barring their support of specific policies I hate, of course).

a reply to: TzarChasm

Agreed. It's pretty easy to justify 'bad behavior" . Religion is just one means.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Isurrender73

But just as the religious do harm in the name of their God, atheists have been known to do harm in the name of political ideology.

originally posted by: Annee
You want to explain that?

Please.

Here are some genocidal atheists for you.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot

That's what I thought. This again.

Atheism has no belief. No one acts in the "belief" of atheism.

Power, greed, control, elimination, genocide has nothing to do with atheism being responsible.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Isurrender73

But just as the religious do harm in the name of their God, atheists have been known to do harm in the name of political ideology.

originally posted by: Annee
You want to explain that?

Please.

Here are some genocidal atheists for you.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot

That's what I thought. This again.

Atheism has no belief. No one acts in the "belief" of atheism.

Power, greed, control, elimination, genocide has nothing to do with atheism being responsible.

But even the "religious" wars were actually about "Power, greed, control, elimination, and genocide". Religion was simply used as an excuse when it suited the purposes of the war makers.

ISIS isn't really about Islam, as every actual Muslim has said for years now. It's about power & control in the MidEast. And even the most basic studies show that the European invasions of the world during Colonialism & Imperialism were about expanding their territories and trade routes, not about spreading religion.

And if atheism is simply "a state of no belief", then capitalism, nationalism, and communism would be labeled as "atheist" as well, since they exist in a condition of no belief in a deity.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Isurrender73

But just as the religious do harm in the name of their God, atheists have been known to do harm in the name of political ideology.

originally posted by: Annee
You want to explain that?

Please.

Here are some genocidal atheists for you.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot

That's what I thought. This again.

Atheism has no belief. No one acts in the "belief" of atheism.

Power, greed, control, elimination, genocide has nothing to do with atheism being responsible.

But even the "religious" wars were actually about "Power, greed, control, elimination, and genocide". Religion was simply used as an excuse when it suited the purposes of the war makers.

ISIS isn't really about Islam, as every actual Muslim has said for years now. It's about power & control in the MidEast. And even the most basic studies show that the European invasions of the world during Colonialism & Imperialism were about expanding their territories and trade routes, not about spreading religion.

And if atheism is simply "a state of no belief", then capitalism, nationalism, and communism would be labeled as "atheist" as well, since they exist in a condition of no belief in a deity.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. That's it. You can't attach anything else to it.

It is not anti-theism. You don't rid the world of religion in the name of atheist belief. Because there is no belief.

However, individuals can create their own philosophy based in non-religious belief. It is their personal philosophy/belief that you can blame for their actions.

a reply to: Annee

I actually agree with you to an extent. We should blame the individuals for their actions, not their beliefs or lack of beliefs. But I also have to point out the double standards when blaming religions for things.

If an atheist commits a crime, we should blame the individual and their individual motives, not their lack of faith in a religion or its tenets. But if a person who says he/she accepts a religion commits a crime, we should blame their religion & not their individual motives? That doesn't seem fair at all.

What if their motives or actions contradict their religious teachings? Should we now blame their non-compliance of scripture instead of their personal motives? As in, "they never would've done it if they'd just followed their scriptures".