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? |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 81 - 86 of 86
|
Vermont wrote
at 11:14 AM, Friday January 6, 2012 EST Also, there are many extremely bright atheist philosophers who have spent their lives trying to prove that God doesn't exist. Personally, I found Antony Flew's arguments to be the most consistent and well presented.
While you can't prove a negative, you can prove that certain concepts are inconsistent with a variety of other areas, such as logic, nature, rational thought, etc. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 11:15 AM, Friday January 6, 2012 EST Being on the West Coast and missing 30+ posts is annoying.
|
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 11:30 AM, Friday January 6, 2012 EST Welcome to my world Verms, but you can't beat this weather we are having in the middle of January.
Religion has been used as the reason for countless atrocities over the course of history, but it isn't religions fault that man is violent and greedy, that is in fact the reason religion often comes about to temper our inherently destructive self interested tendencies. Religion deserves far less flack for the violence perpetrated in its name, the prevision of an ideal does not make the ideal guilty only those that twisted that ideal. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 11:38 AM, Friday January 6, 2012 EST Absolutely, Sam. The way I usually state that is that 'the abuse of a philosophy doesn't invalidate the philosophy.'
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 2:06 PM, Friday January 6, 2012 EST gotta love el nino. except that I really enjoy the cold... 62 degrees and sunny here.
|
|
Marsyas wrote
at 10:43 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST I think it's more about something the atheist candidate is lacking. psychological identification. voter assume that since the candidate is coming from a different background he won't be able to represent his wishes & demands. the way the voter himself would deal with the issues if he was in charge of solving the problems the candidate is facing. so the voter is biased toward those who he identifies with, based upon primarily his political agenda ofc, and just fills the holes with religion or any less relevant or even irrelevant attributes like social class, color, etc.
religion is a political catalyst since ages, while atheism isn't. and that is not based upon anything, so am sorry if i wasted your time reading this. |
