Would you vote for an atheist?

[purplepoppy]

A politician says he thinks religion is a load of bollocks and he's proud to be an atheist. Would would you be more or less willing to vote for him?

I'm religious but I'd respect his honesty and vote for him

I'm religious and expect the same of my politicians

I'm an atheist and he gets my vote

I'm an atheist and I'd think he's being a bit of a knobhead

[on_my_knees]

Of course. Just because you're an atheist doesn't preclude scientific or rational grounds for being an ethical person, or for that matter believing in universal principles. You also have to consider the opportunity cost of religious thoughts and activities. If you're busy justifying why it's possible for Jesus to walk on water, then you've consciously chosen to spend your mental activity in that way, rather than some other activity such as dreaming up fully automated city states for homeless people.

[AviatorTom]

I vote for candidates based on their qualifications and ability to do the job... in the way I prefer it be done. I really don't care about their personal beliefs or what their do in their private lives.

[WhitneySnow]

I’m religious, but I’d vote for an atheist if I agreed with their politics and they respected my religion

[sage2021]

No, but he'll no I wouldn't vote for an atheist president!

[Anonymous]

in the past I wouldn't care but the more I think about it the more it's clear that atheists lack the morals and ethics of their religious counterparts and an atheist politician would be the worse of them all

politics is already a dirty profession, add in the fact he/she really wouldn't care about corruption and abusing power because he/she don't believe in a higher power is really grounds for tyranny and dictatorship. look no further than Chairman Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin of Soviet Russia

[MisterWack]

Just saw this today and thought it was an interesting question to answer.

I vote on the principle of policy and if that person is a devoted Catholic or Christian or Hindu or Atheist I won’t hold them to a bias.

My main concerns are Healthcare, Homelessness, Housing Market, and ‘War On Terror’ though seems like the political landscape is evolving a lot and 2028 will be different than 2024 for better or worse….

[buzzword]

You realize a "vote" is a prayer, a vow, a promise to God. It comes from the Latin word votum. I don't see why atheists even vote, or why an atheist would run for office and encourage others to pray for him. It's kind of counter productive for atheists.

[goaded]

C, unless he's a knobhead. Atheism on it's own is no guarantee of anything, just look at the "Four Horsemen". That meme is hilarious, by the way.

[PA19062024]

No, I can't say that I would. Not because I think atheists are all bad people (they're not), but because atheists tend to be moral relativists because that's what atheism inevitably leads to. If you truly believe there is no grounding for morality, no absolute standard, then what you believe is right and wrong is just a matter of opinion and nothing else. How could I ever trust someone like that to do the right thing?

[Kaizer000]

No, I wouldn't. Obviously religious people can be crackheads too or be hypocrites. But Atheism is a whole level of crazy where a person has no objective standard for their morality. It's basically their whims that decide for them what's right or wrong. I would not feel comfortable with someone like that running my country. Because a lot of them are either Utilitarians, Nihilists or Hedonists. And I say this as an Ex-Atheist.

[on_my_knees]

Wring. There are scientific grounds for morality. But tell me, what are the objective standards for morality that Christianity teaches? I thought it was faith-based.

[Kaizer000]

There are no "scientific" grounds for morality. You've just pulled that out of your arse. Even if there was, there is no imperative nor obligation to follow it. I've no reason to defend my moral beliefs on a comment section against some random keyboard warrior. But no, religious people believe God is the source of moral laws and that they're objective and cannot be changed.

[on_my_knees]

No reason to go on a crusade here, but I'll just assume you've never heard of neuroscience, sociology, anthropology, or evolutionary biology.

[Kaizer000]

I've heard of all of those. None of them give you objective morality. If they do, prove it.

[on_my_knees]

Not to mention that Newton's laws prove and interconnectedness of forces in the physical world, which can be paralleled with the interconnectedness of human actions and their impacts on others, idiot.

[Kaizer000]

Still not an argument for objective morality. Just because my actions affect others in any way, it does not mean I should objectively act in certain ways. Try again.

[Kaizer000]

Actually, don't bother trying again. I've studied most of the major Atheistic arguments for objective morality. All of them suck. They don't have it. It's as simple as that. As such, I don't think you can trust them with a country.

[DemonPossessedPope]

@on_my_knees talked about his near death experience, i bet it does not require illogical religion for him in order to conclude, that since your soul doesn't disappear after this body dies, being a selfish fuck won't create a good start in the life after death.

[on_my_knees]

Since you are a Christian who doesn't even follow his own moral code, I'm not sure how you can argue that yours is superior to mine. In fact my moral code extends beyond loving my neighbor as I love myself. Not to brag, but the interconnections of all things that I've learned from science, actually extends to animals, plants, stars, to everything. You see, it takes logic to know that my own well being is intrinsically linked to the compassion that I show others.

[on_my_knees]

Also, even though you don't realize it, you're using the scientific method whenever you apply your spiritual principles to the world. I'm assuming that you see some proof of your hypothesis of God's love which has convinced you that your theory is sound. It's not different from Newton observing the behavior of objects in collision experiments, only his observations are based on fact.

[Kaizer000]

... The whole fact that the world is comprehendible by the human mind and ordered in a certain way, heeding certain laws to utmost precision in of itself, is evidence against Atheism.

[on_my_knees]

But you're not providing evidence for the existence of God. You're just saying "I don't know what this is, therefore it must be intelligent design." It's an appeal to ignorance. A better argument would be that the fact that the world is comprehensible by the human mind and ordered in a certain way is evidence of the remarkable capacity of natural processes to give rise to complex and intelligible structures and that the human mind evolved to adapt to them. Was there some specific natural process to which you were referring?

[Kaizer000]

You're just doing the same thing, you don't know where it's from, you feel that it is all entirely magically explicable scientifically. Yes, for example, the logic of mathematics. There is no reason why a human mind should be able to comprehend the world or why the known universe should follow certain laws. A law implies a law giver. You've yet to give me an argument for Atheistic objective morality. I'm waiting

[on_my_knees]

You can't prove the existence of God by shifting the burden of proof onto me. I'm not the one arguing that God must have designed the world since it's so intelligible. The burden of proof is on you.

[Kaizer000]

The argument was never about the existence of God, it was about Atheistic objective morality. You claimed that they have it. Prove it.

[on_my_knees]

I already have. I don't need a story about God handing down a list of rules to some ex-slave on a mountain. Science has proven that forces exist within systems. For example, if I push on a wall, the wall pushes back with equal and opposite force. This is just one tiny example of the interconnections of the universe. Morally speaking, when one exists within such a system, then it benefits his existence to be mindful of the force he uses. The Buddhists call it karma, which in the West few people understand, so let's not even delve into that. Suffice it to say it's based on observable principles, on science.

[Kaizer000]

That does not mean morality is objective. It means every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

[on_my_knees]

Let's reword Newton's third law then: "Judge not least ye be judged"

[DemonPossessedPope]

So back to the topic of morality. Do you personally know people who shit on others and it's fine in their mind as long as they pray and go to church and believe they're forgiven?

[Kaizer000]

Jesus himself judged sin. So did his apostles. There is a difference between vain and righteous judgement

[Kaizer000]

Yes, it is totally fine to call people out on their nonsense. And it is not a sin so you do not have to confess it.

[DemonPossessedPope]

By shitting on others, it wasn't meant to judge and gossip and call out. You can take it literally, it's common for Christians to believe that it's ok to throw slop at you, as long as you confess, you can do it daily. You can urinate in someone's drink, confess to god and not the person who consumed it.

[Kaizer000]

I don't know which Christian believes that. But yes, if they do that and truly repent of their sins, they will be forgiven. If they do not, I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely not. It is hard enough dealing with politicians who at least fear God a little bit. They still are idiots, but at least have some level of conscious to answer to.

Atheists are a whole different level of bad. Just look at how many atheists treat believers when they have no real power to do more than just say mean things. Imagine the oppression if one of these idiots held office.

[RainbowMarinade]

The jails and political halls are filled with those claiming to be religious. And have been for a long time.
Yet you are worried about atheist because they say mean things?

[sawno]

The politician I support is agnostic but spiritual in nature so thats already pretty close. I personally don't mind if they are athiests as long as the policies are good.

[Lliam]

I'm not religious and think "God bless this" and "God bless that" is bullshit.
I would certainly vote for an atheist as long as I approved of their political policies.

[sean1234]

After being a delegate, I learned there is no reason to vote. If big government wants you to wear blue on a Tuesday, then no matter whos elected, its going to happen.

[genericname85]

i think that every time politics and religion mixes, it creates some sort of holocaust. so since we're living in a secular society, i think having an atheist president would be the most sensible thing.

[Danisa]

An atheist can never be trusted. They play from their own subjective playbook. Just look at Neil Clegg.

[HawkPerception]

I'm agnostic myself and I think it's bizarre to decide how the government and laws are regulated based on religion. Yes, I would vote for an atheist.

[paledreams]

I'm a fat laughing Buddha/devil worshipper (not satanic, vomits at blood ritual blood 🩸 ) 🤕
So I'd vote for a sensible atheist if they're left wing.
Not right wing or centrist

[SotiCoto]

I don't vote because voting never achieves anything... but the religious shouldn't be allowed to even run for positions of power as they're mentally unqualified for the task.

[RebelinSteel]

If he is competent, it does not really matter if he’s an atheist, a Druid or a Christian.

[OfDeath]

Yes I would. Someone who believes in actually taking action to achieve an outcome instead of just praying for it can only be a positive.

[motownplayer2000]

No. I’m Christian. So I think God should be first and foremost in everything so I personally wouldn’t vote for them.

[Goahead76]

Atheism can't be taken seriously anymore, their arguments are ridiculous. I give vastly more credibility to someone who is agnostic.

[OtterMan68]

Only if he could respect my religious beliefs.

[Nifrayu]

I'm definitely much more likely to vote for an atheist.

[MrGSpotHer]

I think they mostly all worship the devil even without realising it

[butterfly_nake87]

Who cares? It's not like people who believes in God has made the country any good.

[Dargil]

Willful, no. Agnostic, yes.

[Anonymous]

If they were the better choice, yes.

[Anonymous]

Yes I would, I'm also not religious.

[FreyaRed]

Preferably

[Sweetdreams1950]

Yes, I'm an atheist.

[Iron_Man]

No never

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No..

[eagle1951]

hell no