Would you vote for an Athiest President?

[Wicked Pilot]

Mr. B, you're from Minnesota right? What do you think of The Body?

[Durandal]

Yes. He is publicly quoted as describing organized religion as a "crutch for weak-minded people," when he was discussing the benefits of legalizing prostitution.

[Lusankya]

We had an open atheist for PM (basically President) in about the 60s? I think. He was probably a great disappointment to his father (his father being a priest of some description).

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Vote for atheist presidential candidate? Sure, why not? Look, I don't care whether the candidate is Atheist, Moslem, Christian, Buddhist, Jews, etc. As long as he/she shares the same views and ideals with me, it's okay.

I don't even care if the candidate is a Satan-Worshipper. Religion (or the lack of it) is a strictly ***PERSONAL*** matters, and should never be used to judge someone's professional capability.

[Mr Bean]

Mr. B, you're from Minnesota right?

No I'm not but the guy won me over the instant I saw him on the news live as there was a crowd of women outside protesting about the fact that thanks to him if your on wellfare for at least a year and have another kid you don't get any Medical Benfits or such from him(This was in response to some lady who had six kids when on welfare and eventual was making sixty thousand a year of benfits alone but never kindly informed the state that she had given most of them up for adoption already)

Well here are a bunch of self-rightious women and here comes Jessy to talk with him at first they just rail at him but the nomial leader gets close enough and starts aurging with him and he starts smacking down every single aurgment she tosses up and then Jessy and a few cops makes the crowd disperce while the beaten leader trys to start an chant but all the other women where listening to them talk and it never caught

From what I've heard and his history he evidently did this every time a crowd of protesters came to the governers building and he was there

In the end he was crippled for his last two years because the State Legistator would not do anything he asked of them and subsquently or by accident(I don't know enough to say) his state Econ sliped into big trouble

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I don't care what religon (or lack of) he/she is. As long as it's not some bible thumping forcing religon down everyone's throat person or a burn all the churches!

[Mr. B]

Mr. B, you're from Minnesota right? What do you think of The Body?

I loved the Body. But the legislature fucked him over. They had something against him from the very beginning. I've been to the ST capital before and every one of those bastards had something against him.

I think that the two partys are just trying to keep out any serious competition.

[Mr. B]

In the end he was crippled for his last two years because the State Legistator would not do anything he asked of them and subsquently or by accident(I don't know enough to say) his state Econ sliped into big trouble

The econ slipped becasue the legislature wouldn't agree on anything with Ventura.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wonder who those 4 who wouldnt vote for an athiest would be and why they voted that way?

[Gil Hamilton]

I'd vote for an atheist president, as long as he's qualified. If the relgious guy was more qualified, then I'd vote for him.

The problem is that it would be a wasted vote. Studies have shown that the majority of people in the United States simply don't understand the issues. That's why politicians have been known to promise things that aren't even covered in chief executive, because they know that many people don't know enough about the system to know that he can't do that. So people vote for the politician that is in their professed party and is the most like them. The sad truth of the matter is that if an atheist was the perfect candidate all around, he'd still lose because many people don't understand why he's the best man for the job and will vote against him because he's an atheist and not a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew...) like them.
Also, it's been shown that many people will vote for the candidate who's physically more attractive. Kennedy demolished Nixon on pure charisma. Kinda sad, really

[Stuart Mackey]

I would.

But there have been polls in USA that people would vote for a gay man before an athiest. This just proves that America is extremely biased against Athiests. And that we are the most under represented minority in America.

Mr. B for President

(no chance in hell I would be elected)

I am lucky I am a New Zealander, and live in a Kingdom. Besides people here tend to vote for policy and a persons ability to govern properly. A politiains personel life does not really enter into the equation so long as they have not done anything illegal. Hell we had the worlds first transgendered MP and we have had, and still do have, a number of gay MP's.

[Azeron]

yes, well abraham lincoln was more of an agnostic at the time of his election, but he became quite the christian during the war.

Historically speaking, most people that have been murdered thier own government or for the personal glory of some dictator, were killed by aethists. As a group, aetheists have quite the track record for murding large amounts of people they deam undesiable. every year for the past hundred years (I am not entirely sure for every year, but from the years I have seen religous struggle gets more attention while secularists rack up the most bodies), atheists have consistantly topped the list of tyrants and such.

What does this say about aethists. absolutely nothing. but when it comes to power, its probably best to have someone who has the fear of god in him condemning his eternal soul to keep them on the straight and narrow.

[Stuart Mackey]

yes, well abraham lincoln was more of an agnostic at the time of his election, but he became quite the christian during the war.

Historically speaking, most people that have been murdered thier own government or for the personal glory of some dictator, were killed by aethists. As a group, aetheists have quite the track record for murding large amounts of people they deam undesiable. every year for the past hundred years (I am not entirely sure for every year, but from the years I have seen religous struggle gets more attention while secularists rack up the most bodies), atheists have consistantly topped the list of tyrants and such.

What does this say about aethists. absolutely nothing. but when it comes to power, its probably best to have someone who has the fear of god in him condemning his eternal soul to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Proof?
and yes, I do know about Mao and Stalin. be specific please

[Azeron]

well there are tons of proof availiable.

Take a look at nearly all the great conquerers in history, most were all atheisits. Hitler, arguebly a pagan, was for the most part an Atheist.

There is Atilia the Hun
Preisdent Muagbe in the news these days
forced abortion in china, along with large amounts of people beign killed for demanding political rights.
there is Saddam, he kills allot of people each year,
whats going on in the african congo
Kadafi runs a secular government in Lybia, another very muderous regime,


hey look at history, most people have been killed in secular conflicts over secular goals. Religous conflict really is a shadow of it.

I really can't go through 3000 years of history with you on this subject, this would really be a 4 college history course.

Its one of those things, thats simply true despite what you might hear about in the press.

Take the Romeman action that put down the jewish nation. 200,000 dead jews (men women/children, civilian/military) in todays percentages of world population, that would be about 130 million people.

Between the persians the mongolians, the various chinese monarchies, and the romans, you have some of the biggest killers of people in history

[Stuart Mackey]

well there are tons of proof availiable.

Take a look at nearly all the great conquerers in history, most were all atheisits. Hitler, arguebly a pagan, was for the most part an Atheist.

Snip. I asked for proof, not what your opinion is. You didnt provide any evidence that any of the people you mentioned was an atheist.

[Azeron]

Like I said, you want proof about whether its true or not, its really a 4 year college course. Too big of a subject to subject to a standard of proof as such, becasue we could be arguing about it if you had enugh background about any case in particular. But like i said, go take a look if you want of the worlds greatest conquorer's the vast majority are atheists. Espeically the ones who commited the most murder.

I guess I could start referencing the historical accounts for the past 3000 years, and tallying them against sectratarain violence, but it would be a very long post, and take me maybe years to complete. You are either familiar with history or not, and from that perspective if one indeed had a significant background one could debate the point, but I find it unlikely that one who was would challenege my assertion.

Its just not really something that would be considered controversial.

[kojikun]

New poll:

Is Azeron's title of "Village Idiot" appropriate? Please choose from below.

[] Yes

[VF5SS]

What does this say about aethists. absolutely nothing. but when it comes to power, its probably best to have someone who has the fear of god in him condemning his eternal soul to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Well, you could just get a guy into power who's a good leader. Skip the whole religious thing all together. I mean if someone believes the boogyman is gonna damn him for eternity, how grounded in reality do you think he is?

[Stuart Mackey]

Like I said, you want proof about whether its true or not, its really a 4 year college course. Too big of a subject to subject to a standard of proof as such, becasue we could be arguing about it if you had enugh background about any case in particular. But like i said, go take a look if you want of the worlds greatest conquorer's the vast majority are atheists. Espeically the ones who commited the most murder.

BS of the first magnitude, try useing a search engine. If you want to say that the lord high executionaers of history are atheists, the burden of proof is on you. Dont just spout something and expect people to beleive it just because you say so, you claim to be a academic of sorts, yet you cannot even support a argument properly.

I guess I could start referencing the historical accounts for the past 3000 years, and tallying them against sectratarain violence, but it would be a very long post, and take me maybe years to complete. You are either familiar with history or not, and from that perspective if one indeed had a significant background one could debate the point, but I find it unlikely that one who was would challenege my assertion.

Chalenge your assetation? christ on his cross pull your head out of your ass, just because you say its true does not make it so, you make the claim you provide the evidence to back it up.

Its just not really something that would be considered controversial.

You are right. If any self respecting historian behaved as you do, posting unsubstanciated opinion as if it were fact, it would be a laughing stock.

[Azeron]

BS of the first magnitude, try useing a search engine. If you want to say that the lord high executionaers of history are atheists, the burden of proof is on you. Dont just spout something and expect people to beleive it just because you say so, you claim to be a academic of sorts, yet you cannot even support a argument properly.

Its really a big subject. If you want a liberal education go to college and get one. There really isn't enough time to go over 3000 years of global history in a few paragraphs and refereences to a few people out of many, but that wouldn't really prove or disprove the point. Internet research is really something you should hold out as absolute, there is a great deal of crap out there due to people simplfing research for the masses. You would need to read a few books, quite a few.

But like I said, if you want to challenege the assertion and debate the point, you are going to need to do allot of research

It would be like asking a scienctist to "prove" quantum theory tio an audience who don;t have a clue about physics or math. To put forward a successful challenege you are going to need to do allot background work.

This is not like a debate on Genetically Modified foods being good or bad, or whther social security is good, where an argument can be made off a few reference sources, this is really a huge topic. You either have a background for it or not.

whether you should accept it or not is really up to you. Persoanlly if I were yu, I would look at the past centruy, somethign you would be somewhat familar with and ask yourself, "who were the biggest murders during the 20th century?"

If I were putting together a paper for the professional community of historians, yes it would be annotateed with refereence sources, many hundreds if not thousands of them. But like Mike dumbs down the scienctific nature of the site, I dumb down the argument for mass consumptiion. However one could spend time telling a sciencetist or an engineer "prove it" if you don;t have the background you are going to get to an ever recursive event of explaining things you never bothered to learn in the first part, it would take forever. And the engineer or sciencetist would say you are really not in a position to ask that question, and its not like its contorversial to begin with.

[Durandal]

The atheists you mentioned never murdered in the name of their beliefs. Atheism has no moral code. It is a simple religious belief. An atheist simply follows whatever moral code he wishes to (secular humanism, objectivism, naturalism, utilitarianism, deontologicism whatever).

[oberon]

Settle down, RayCav, fuck damn rimjob asshole shit fuck, see I can swear too. It was a joke. I'd post the definition but I think you've seen it before in a... erm, similar forum. Carter was in charge when 2 Blackhawks went in to rescue some hostages, see, and they got shot down. Hence my smily being the character. This made Jimmy look bad, paved the way for Reagan and the intense military buildfup that got us through "Vietnam Syndrome" and made us the cuntry we are today, puissant and more heavy-duty than anybody. Geeze, take it easy--I said "hawk" and 1 or 2 random bombings here and there in the name of some ill-formed policy do not a hawk make. Abstract ideas about an eternal war, on the other hand, made real, do.

[Gil Hamilton]

There is Atilia the Hun
Preisdent Muagbe in the news these days
forced abortion in china, along with large amounts of people beign killed for demanding political rights.
there is Saddam, he kills allot of people each year,
whats going on in the african congo
Kadafi runs a secular government in Lybia, another very muderous regime,

Attila the Hun was an hunnish animalist. He certainly wasn't an atheist.
Robert Mugabe is Roman Catholic, in fact, he taught at Kutama Mission in Zvimba. (you can get this from any web search on him)
Saddam Hussein is a Muslim.
The people involved in the ongoing conflict in the Congo are, for the most part, Catholic or one of the myriad of religions in the area.
Qaddafi is a Muslim and a buddy of Louie Farrakhan.

[Stuart Mackey]

BS of the first magnitude, try useing a search engine. If you want to say that the lord high executionaers of history are atheists, the burden of proof is on you. Dont just spout something and expect people to beleive it just because you say so, you claim to be a academic of sorts, yet you cannot even support a argument properly.

Its really a big subject. If you want a liberal education go to college and get one. There really isn't enough time to go over 3000 years of global history in a few paragraphs and refereences to a few people out of many, but that wouldn't really prove or disprove the point. Internet research is really something you should hold out as absolute, there is a great deal of crap out there due to people simplfing research for the masses. You would need to read a few books, quite a few.

But like I said, if you want to challenege the assertion and debate the point, you are going to need to do allot of research

You are full of it. Gill Hamailton has pointed out how much so on page 4.

It would be like asking a scienctist to "prove" quantum theory tio an audience who don;t have a clue about physics or math. To put forward a successful challenege you are going to need to do allot background work.

This is not like a debate on Genetically Modified foods being good or bad, or whther social security is good, where an argument can be made off a few reference sources, this is really a huge topic. You either have a background for it or not.

whether you should accept it or not is really up to you. Persoanlly if I were yu, I would look at the past centruy, somethign you would be somewhat familar with and ask yourself, "who were the biggest murders during the 20th century?"
snip

Oh horse shit. Challenge? what challenge? you have made sweeping statements totally unsuppoted by _any_ evidence to back it up. Hussein, for example, is Muslim, do you seriously think that a person in that area of the world could be a atheist? this can be found on the web, and does not require a degree in history to work out. If you want to spout that Atheists were resposible for most of the atrocities in history, then provide some evidence. And your opinion is not evidence.

[Azeron]

Yes that is true, officially they were born whatever, but take Saddam for instance, he has given interviews where he has clearly said that he isn;t anything. he just beelives in power. Stalin is his hero, and has spoken a great deal about his "idol", with one quote being "Do you really think Stalin was a communist". In case you missed a point in history, is that people often pretend to be something they are not to get and stay in power to appease to the sensibilities ofg the people. This is very common in dictatorships.

As for kadafi as well, again he really is one in public to people outside, but as people have noted he really isn't.

If sadamm or Kadafi (BTW these are phenoticized words, so spelling is really just a function of sounding out a dialect you hear) were really muslims, they would have established a caliphate (a divinely supported reigme as defined and mandated in the Koran) of some sort, which they haven't.

This is a difficuly subject, and there is allot of material, and some concepts that aren't readily understood.