Do Atheist Vote?

[Z]

See, I just don't care about their religion, their faith. But I do care about their practices. Yes, practice stems from faith, but several dozen faiths can all share an identical practice. If the doctor believes in 'faith healing' then I reject him, whether he's Christian, Wiccan, or atheist. If a judge clearly makes decisions that are detrimental, I don't care if it's from a Christian view or any other.

Frankly, there are some who are Christian who will act and judge according to the Law and common sense, and there are some who will judge poorly against homos, women, and non-Christians. So to look at a Judge's score card, and read 'Christian', in no way influences whether I vote for him; but reading his history, and seeing a consistant series of bigoted judgements, would cause me some grief.

This is all another category of generalization, prejudice, and bigotry. It's just as bad as generalizing about race, or gender, or anything else.

"Well, I won't vote for Jim, because Jim's a Yubbist, and Yubbists believe that all blondes deserve death."

Doesn't matter whether Yubbist is a race, religion, or what - this kind of attitude is wrong.

"Well, I won't vote for Jim, because he has offered the death sentence for blondes in 95% of cases dealing with blondes."

This, at least, makes sense.

So, no, I really don't care what a person's faith is. Only what their personal opinions and practices are - which of course stems from faith, but cannot be encompassed by faith.

 

[Radrook]

See, I just don't care about their religion, their faith. But I do care about their practices. Yes, practice stems from faith, but several dozen faiths can all share an identical practice. If the doctor believes in 'faith healing' then I reject him, whether he's Christian, Wiccan, or atheist. If a judge clearly makes decisions that are detrimental, I don't care if it's from a Christian view or any other.

Frankly, there are some who are Christian who will act and judge according to the Law and common sense, and there are some who will judge poorly against homos, women, and non-Christians. So to look at a Judge's score card, and read 'Christian', in no way influences whether I vote for him; but reading his history, and seeing a consistant series of bigoted judgements, would cause me some grief.

This is all another category of generalization, prejudice, and bigotry. It's just as bad as generalizing about race, or gender, or anything else.

"Well, I won't vote for Jim, because Jim's a Yubbist, and Yubbists believe that all blondes deserve death."

Doesn't matter whether Yubbist is a race, religion, or what - this kind of attitude is wrong.

"Well, I won't vote for Jim, because he has offered the death sentence for blondes in 95% of cases dealing with blondes."

This, at least, makes sense.

So, no, I really don't care what a person's faith is. Only what their personal opinions and practices are - which of course stems from faith, but cannot be encompassed by faith.

The above is just one huge example of strawman. sigh!



This is the same person who will sue the airlines if an accident happened and he found out that the airlines had a person with suicidal predisposition as a pilot.


Actually, Anyone basically familiar with the Social Sciences knows that a person's beliefs affect his behavior. Behavior is acquired via socialization and socialization is effected via the social institutions of family, religion educational system, and so on. That is how we acquire a world view. Now, we all know that a person's world view affects his conduct and that a pilot of an airplane or a politician is no different from anyone else in this respect.

Claiming that one doesn't care what a pilot's personal moral beliefs are or a politician's beliefs are is just plain dumb.

Of course this is not to say that we have to delve into every person's background before we accept his services. Obviously in such cases we assume the best for practical reasons. We do care but must assume that the person has been adequately screened before being placed in a position in which lives are at stake,

Fortunately most people have the needed sense to realize this and do want to know what a politician's moral beliefs and what behavior based on those beliefs can be expected before they vote for him.

BTW
Maybe being a witch gives this fella an advantage we dont have when getting on an airplane. But for the reast of us mortals--gravity works.

 

[rebecca]

That's like saying that as a passenger you don't care about the beliefs of an airplane pilot.

Sorry? I don't follow -- are you agreeing with me here? Because no, I don't care about the beliefs of my airplane pilot. What I care about is if and how those beliefs impact his actions on the job.

A Christian airplane pilot would be just fine with me. I start having a problem with him when he decides to spend time praying instead of flying the plane because he thinks the rapture is coming right then.

 

[Z]

Fortunately most people have the needed sense to realize this and do want to know what a politician's moral beliefs and what behavior based on those beliefs can be expected before they vote for him.

Since a politician is a representative of the people, and since most politicians are expected to act in representative fashion, their beliefs become largely irrelevant, save for what behaviors they enact based on those beliefs.

There are senators, etc. who are against homosexuality, who have voted against the marriage redefinition recently, and those who claim not to be who vote for it. Certainly, the simple fact that most politicians (if not all) lie, shows that knowing what he claims are his 'beliefs' is irrelevant - how many times has the American people been fooled into voting liars into office? How many politicians stay absolutely true to their faith during their term of service??

And, as you pointed out, in most situations, the person in a role has been screened and, it may be assumed, is not prone to any behaviour unfavorable to his post. Politicians are not, but since faith plays such a small role in American politics, I prefer knowing if they are liberal or conservative, and specifically on what issues, than whether they believe in God or Allah or nothing at all.

In other words, I don't generalize base on religion. I need specific facts about their behavior.

If a politician claims to be a Christian, shouldn't we assume that means they won't promote killing, theft, etc? Yet most do, in one way or another. Bush put us into a state of war - yet he's supposedly Christian. In fact, wouldn't the Commandment against killing specifically prevent a Christian politician from going to war? Or, if the OT is disregarded, shouldn't Christ's Golden Rule prevent this?

So consideration of a politician's supposed belief system is irrelevant.

 

[rebecca]

Just to clarify my initial point: I don't vote for someone just because he is an atheist, just as I don't vote for someone just because he is a democrat, or a republican, or whatever. I take everything and weigh the pros and cons. Yes, for me, atheist would a "pro," but it's not the deciding factor by any means.

I think that's the problem with organizing action behind an atheist candidate: not all atheists think the same when it comes to welfare, or the environment, etc.

 

[Z]

Exactly, Rebecca. Any more than I judge a person for being Christian, White, English, or anything else. Other than professions - I really am predisposed to dislike homeopaths, politicians, lawyers, and social workers.

 

[The Cats Venm]

The other three I can understand, but 'Social Workers'? What do you have against Social Workers?

 

[Gulliamo]

Just to clarify my initial point: I don't vote for someone just because he is an atheist, just as I don't vote for someone just because he is a democrat, or a republican, or whatever. I take everything and weigh the pros and cons. Yes, for me, atheist would a "pro," but it's not the deciding factor by any means.

This is more or less how I feel. The question still remains why there are so few if any openly atheist candidates. I believe the answer is that politicians are led to believe that the atheist "community" is not a community at all and therefore has no voting power.

The Christian Coalition members may not agree on every issue but they can come together to get law after law passed and that is why the politicians pander to them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hi Imbecilicus!

I imagine you with an Alfred E. Newman freckled face and the same mindless smile since even such a simple statement baffles you.

Ever think of trying remedial classes?

You idiot, I know exactly what your statement implies. You are equating atheism with immorality. Tell me, what evidence do you have that atheism means a person can do whatever they want? Many atheists have their own set of values and morals.

 

[dmarker]

The above is just one huge example of strawman. sigh!



This is the same person who will sue the airlines if an accident happened and he found out that the airlines had a person with suicidal predisposition as a pilot.

I don't think suicidal predisposition is confined to one religion. Suicide is spread across all religions and cultures. So how are you going to determine if the pilot has a suicidal disposition?

Actually, Anyone basically familiar with the Social Sciences knows that a person's beliefs affect his behavior. Behavior is acquired via socialization and socialization is effected via the social institutions of family, religion educational system, and so on. That is how we acquire a world view. Now, we all know that a person's world view affects his conduct and that a pilot of an airplane or a politician is no different from anyone else in this respect.


Claiming that one doesn't care what a pilot's personal moral beliefs are or a politician's beliefs are is just plain dumb.

I would have a problem with a fatalist not doing safety checks because he knows that he will not crash. But if he does the safety checks anyways just to keep the airline happy and keep his job, I wouldn't care what he felt.

Of course this is not to say that we have to delve into every person's background before we accept his services. Obviously in such cases we assume the best for practical reasons. We do care but must assume that the person has been adequately screened before being placed in a position in which lives are at stake,

Fortunately most people have the needed sense to realize this and do want to know what a politician's moral beliefs and what behavior based on those beliefs can be expected before they vote for him.

BTW
Maybe being a witch gives this fella an advantage we dont have when getting on an airplane. But for the reast of us mortals--gravity works.

Unless the politician in question lies. You have yet to bring evidence of how an atheist would be suicidal or behave immorally et.

 

[Iacchus]

You idiot, I know exactly what your statement implies. You are equating atheism with immorality. Tell me, what evidence do you have that atheism means a person can do whatever they want? Many atheists have their own set of values and morals.

I think you just answered your own question here. Of course what it really gets down to is what these values and morals mean to us. So, anything could be justified in that sense, sort of like calling people stupid all the time if, that makes any sense?

 

[dmarker]

I think you just answered your own question here. Of course what it really gets down to is what these values and morals mean to us. So, anything could be justified in that sense, sort of like calling people stupid all the time.

As opposed to the Spanish Inquisition?

 

[Iacchus]

As opposed to the Spanish Inquisition?

How about all the atrocities committed under the Atheist regime of Joseph Stalin? Or, say the Cultural Revolution in China?

Hmm ... That's actually a good question. Do Atheists in general argue from the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx regarding the overthrow of capitalist countries? This just occurred to me the other day and I'm beginning to wonder how much truth there is in that? Because it seems like no matter what I say, it always gets twisted around into something else. Isn't that weird?

 

[SezMe]

i believe that Thomas Paine was an out and out atheist, but i'm not sure if he would necessarily be consiered a "founder" (why do i think of changelings every time i see or hear that world? ).

Then you have not read "The Age of Reason" by Paine. In it, he adamently declares his Deism and defends it by looking at the natural world.

 

[Z]

I think Stalin and China don't stack up one whit to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Burning Times, WWI, WWII, and all the massive mass murders in the Middle East since Christianity first arose...

Can someone come up with an estimate of deaths caused by Atheists vs. death caused by Christians? Excluding Jews and Muslims??

(As for social workers, I have a fundamental problem with someone who may or may not even have children of his or her own, entering someone else's home and making judgements of their parenting skills. I've known many social workers, personally and professionally, and I believe that over half of them would be incompetant parents, if they ever had kids.)

 

[Maledict]

How about all the atrocities committed under the Atheist regime of Joseph Stalin? Or, say the Cultural Revolution in China?

And do you have any evidence that it was Stalin's Atheism that caused him to commit his attrocities or are you just going to use the fallacy of equivication again?

 

[Iacchus]

And do you have any evidence that it was Stalin's Atheism that caused him to commit his attrocities or are you just going to use the fallacy of equivication again?

Both yours and Zaayrdragon's arguments don't bear repeating. Besides, how do you know for a fact that those who held the Spanish Inquisitions were True Christians? Would you care to define what a True Christian is? Which, is basically what your'e asking me about Stalin ... Hence, the No True Scottsman fallacy.

 

[Maledict]

Both yours and Zaarydragon's arguments don't bear any consideration.

Ah, yes - When in doubt - Flee and say that your opponents arguments don't bear any consideration.

Do you have any evidence that Stalin's Atheism was the cause of him commiting the attrocities? Like a quote saying that he was doing what he was doing in the name of Atheism?

Besides, how do you know for a fact that those who held the Spanish Inquisitions were True Christians? Care to define it? Which, is basically what your'e asking me about Stalin

Then would you care to define what a True Christian is? Or is it whatever you say it is? The Swedenborg Church? You still haven't answered any of those questions at all in. That seems to be the only one true factor in determening who a true christian is.

Hence, the No True Scottsman fallacy.

Are you even reading my posts or just listing fallacies which had nothing to do with what I was asking?

You're using the fallacy of equivocation to come to the conclusion that Atheism is morally.

Stalin was evil.
Stalin was an Atheist
Therefore, Atheists are evil

That's just about as bad as:

Hitler was evil
Hitler had a moustache
Therefore, people with moustaches are evil.

 

[Iacchus]

Sorry, I didn't make the initial equivocation to the Spanish Inquisition. So if you want to argue about something, argue about that, Okay?

 

[Z]

Let's see... the Inquisition was sponsored by the Church on supposedly Christian ideals. Of course, we could easily say it was unChristian for them to act in the way which they did - yet they still did so under the banner of Christianity.

No war, murder, or hate crime has ever been committed by a True Christian, provided you define a True Christian as one who acts in a Christ-like way. Unfortunately, history won't record things that way.

The better statement I should make is, what is the comparison of those atrocities committed under the banner of (behind the mask of) Christianity, versus those commited under the banner of (behind the mask of) Atheism?

Now, if you choose to make the statement that the world's atrocities were committed by either a) atheists or b) evil persons, then I wholly agree. But if we follow the Bible concept that we should not judge others, then we have no right to deny that persons claiming to be Christian are anything than what they are, and must accept that the major atrocities of the world have been primarily executed by Abrahamic faiths.

If, however, we apply common sense, and awareness of the intended nature of the teachings of the major faiths, then it becomes clear that no atrocity COULD have been committed by Christians, which then implies that, in these instances, True Christians were outnumbered - actually, no, outpowered - by False Christians.

Heck, this could make an interesting thread all in itself! For example, did those committing the atrocities really believe themselves to be Christian, and if so, how did they justify the torture, murder, rape, and pillaging they committed? Is there a logical construct that would let one believe he/she was a true Christian, yet still commit such atrocities?