Forum
What would you think about an openly atheist presidential/congressional candidate?
|
fcuku_ wrote
at 11:54 AM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST
Because we do not have a single representative that is openly atheist/agnostic. Which is baffling considering that (and I'm pulling numbers out of my ass here) I would guess that about 1 in 7 people in the US identify as one of those diety-less belief systems. I do not see why anyone could be so openly opposed to one of their representatives being atheist, or why a rep would be afraid to come public with something like this. Your thoughts?
So I guess the question we can use as a springboard: why would being an atheist/agnostic be so detrimental to the decision making process in the US? |
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 11:56 AM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST BECAUSE WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION AND YOU WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE YOU HERETIC!
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:03 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST I believe the reason; is that most people haven't been able to separate morality from religion.
The idea that ethics and morality exist outside of religion is a fairly new idea in the context of human history. One of the biggest proponents of this; to my knowledge; would be Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is hated by the social conservatives; however she is very popular with the age groups between 17-29. Baby Boomers generally hate her. So; in my estimates; 20 years from now; you will probably see atheist candidates. Openly atheist I should say; because I'm sure there have already been closet atheists. |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:05 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST I suppose the other reason would be that it is easier to get an atheist to vote for a religious person then vice-versa.
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:30 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST ^^
|
|
Shevar wrote
at 1:33 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST "The idea that ethics and morality exist outside of religion is a fairly new idea in the context of human history."
i disagree with that statement. Aristotle had a lot of thoughts on ethics without linking it to any deities. A lot of people and also some societies have seperated religion and morality. on topic: no clue. |
|
superxchloe wrote
at 1:33 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST The logic you presented in the first post simply explains the second, dc. It's easy for people to see a religious man with morals if you're an atheist; it's difficult to see a nonreligious man with more if you're religious.
Agnosticism isn't really diety-less. :) |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 1:38 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST Agnostic implies you are not a gnostic i.e. you are without esoteric knowledge or dismiss the belief that esoteric knowledge is necessary to religion.
I would argue that theism especially monotheism is inherently a gnostic pretense making anyone who is truly agnostic also atheist. Although you could be atheist and gnostic. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:39 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST All authority is established by God. Romans 13:1. The authority of the secular power runs through a different channel than the authority that runs through the Church. So Christians are subject to the governng authority, whether it be Christian, pagan, or atheist.
Since in the United States, the people are the governing authority, and exercise that authority in voting for leaders, the leaders selected with not be a perfect match in beliefs for more than a few of the voters, but whatever the beliefs of the leaders chosen, they attain the God-given establishment of their authority. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 2:09 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST The above paragraph is an example of why I'm atheist. Too much grey area in religion for any of them to be believable.
|
|
|
fcuku_ wrote
at 2:15 PM, Thursday January 5, 2012 EST So if we the people elect politicians who are intent on massacring a group of people, continuing an unjust war or committing crimes against humanity, Christians are bound by the bible to carry out those orders because the leaders are carrying out God's will?
|
