Vote for Atheists?

[Intransigent Atheist]

I'd wouldn't have a problem with an Atheist as a president.

Unless they are radical atheists, who support killing in the name of science.

Would you mind elaborating on that? Are you referring to embryonic stem cell research?

 

[Felicity]

Buddhist theology does not rely on or need Gods, nor do Buddhist ethics or teachings involve Gods, which is probably why many scholars consider Buddhism to be atheistic rather than theistic


Pwned!

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways Quote:
Yes, I am indeed. Sorry about that. He lumped Buddhists together with all the theologies, which confused me somewhat. I now respect Buddhists ever the more.

By: Venerable Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda

Excerpt from the book " What Buddhists Believe"

Is Buddhism Atheistic

"Many scholars" might consider Buddhism atheistic....but how many Buddhists do?

 

[shuamort]

"Many scholars" might consider Buddhism atheistic....but how many Buddhists do?

Dunno, but here's a good article from da wiki.

 

[Monkey Mind]

Dunno, but here's a good article from da wiki.

Have you ever read any of the Buddhist scriptures? There are gods, goddesses, buddhas and demons hanging out all over the place. Buddhist sects run the gamut from full-on polytheism to "we are all one cosmic energy nothingness there is no personal god". No atheist sects that I'm aware of though, and buddhism is certainly not inherently atheist.

I do agree that buddhist ethics and practices can be useful for atheists, but the same could be said of any religion's practices and ethics.

 

[Felicity]

Dunno, but here's a good article from da wiki.

Ultimately..the reason you may think Buddhists are atheist is because Buddhists (in my understanding) try to eliminate the desire of all things--including the desire for God or gods. However, to hold a label called atheism that espouses a belief that there is no God or gods is to cling to a human definition of that which is beyond expression. That would not be the way.

>end momentary highjack--sorry<

I could vote for a Buddhist president--but if he were really a Buddhist, I doubt he'd run.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I've encountered different types of atheists

I would not vote for an atheist who actively believes there is no God.

Your use of "actively" confuses me about what you mean exactly. Do you mean as opposed to believes there is no god "some of the time?"

Do you mean one who leaves out the possibility for one entirely, or one disbelieves in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, etc. And/or are they both equally contemptible to you?

I would vote for an atheist who believes that we don't know nearly enough to start forming opinions on such things.

Don't all atheists hold this position, due to the lack of any proof for a personal supernatural god?

How do you feel about those with a more Einsteinian or Pantheistic sense of the divine. A natural god so to speak, not a humanoid meddling deity?

This is because the former reflects a level of misplaced arrogance that would lead to having a terrible president.

The latter reflects an intelligent difference in belief.

How does the disbelief in any currently revered god lead one into a misplaced level of arrogance?

I only ask you in this manner because I respect your opinions on this board, and I honestly feel a sense of intolerance coming from you for the first time, being directed towards those who would say that they have no reason to believe in a personal supernatural god. (Myself included.)

Or perhaps I misunderstood you completely, and you were referring to what are known as "strong atheists." The ones who forego skepticism and simply state "There is most certainly not a god, supernatural or otherwise."

 

[Jerry]

Why do you oppose atheism [?]....

Atheists, being separate from agnostics ideologically, deny God.

why do you oppose the disbelief in your god [?]

I inherently distrust those who reject love and compassion. The rejection of God, what ever the God concept may be, is exactly the the rejection of love and compassion.

and what relevance does humanism have to do with someone not being qualified?

I would not vote for a candidate I didn't trust, and I do not trust those who reject love and compassion, ie. Atheists and Humanists.

The so called "moral Atheist" or so called "moral-Humanist" is a hypocrite, as by embracing love and compassion they are serving the God that they reject, and are therefore not realy Atheist or Humanist, but simply confused.

That's like rejecting the Constitution yet serving in the military to protect it

Buddhist theology does not rely on or need Gods, nor do Buddhist ethics or teachings involve Gods, which is probably why many scholars consider Buddhism to be atheistic rather than theistic


Pwned!

I have read The Art of Happiness by "his Holiness the Dalai Lama", I keep it right next to my bible in fact, and the Doli Lama is no Atheist.

Also, I have an aunt who is Buddhist and an uncle who was a Tibetan monk (until he wanted to marry), and they are far from atheist.

Buddhism = Deism.

Have you ever read any of the Buddhist scriptures? There are gods, goddesses, buddhas and demons hanging out all over the place. Buddhist sects run the gamut from full-on polytheism to "we are all one cosmic energy nothingness there is no personal god". No atheist sects that I'm aware of though, and buddhism is certainly not inherently atheist.

I do agree that buddhist ethics and practices can be useful for atheists, but the same could be said of any religion's practices and ethics.

I believe that the Biocybernaut Institute would greatly lean twords Zen Buddhism.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Atheists, being separate from agnostics ideologically, deny God.

Did you think you were providing me with information by saying that? And its not "god" its "gods."

I inherently distrust those who reject love and compassion. The rejection of God, what ever the God concept may be, is exactly the the rejection of love and compassion.

Thats a straw man and you know it. You're playing word games with what most people mean by the word god. The disbelief in a supernatural entity is completely unrelated to love and compassion, and to say that atheists reject love and compassionate is being intellectually dishonest at best.

I would not vote for a candidate I didn't trust, and I do not trust those who reject love and compassion, ie. Atheists and Humanists.

See above.

The so called "moral Atheist" or so called "moral-Humanist" is a hypocrite, as by embracing love and compassion they are serving the God that they reject, and are therefore not realy Atheist or Humanist, but simply confused.

You have got to be joking. That logic does not follow.

One can be loving and compassionate without belief in anything supernatural because it is in ones character. Its terribly presumptuous of you to insist that by being loving one is not really an atheist. Your whole argument presupposes the existence of god.

"You're not an atheist, because god exists." :roll: What utter tripe.

 

[Monkey Mind]

Or perhaps I misunderstood you completely, and you were referring to what are known as "strong atheists." The ones who forego skepticism and simply state "There is most certainly not a god, supernatural or otherwise."

I think that is precisely what galenrox was referring to. So was I, when I referred to those who think "they know".

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I think that is precisely what galenrox was referring to. So was I, when I referred to those who think "they know".

Yeah, thats what I'm hoping. Its his use of "actively" that is confusing me.

 

[Thorgasm]

I've encountered different types of atheists

I would not vote for an atheist who actively believes there is no God.

I would vote for an atheist who believes that we don't know nearly enough to start forming opinions on such things.


This is because the former reflects a level of misplaced arrogance that would lead to having a terrible president.

The latter reflects an intelligent difference in belief.

I am not sure how you think that atheism reflects a lever of misplaced arrogance. Do you mean that it is okay to be arrogant as long as you believe in something that there is no proof of? Even if we take the word "misplaced" out of it, how is it arrogant to require proof before believing in something?

I think you chose you words poorly and hope you will elaborate on your thoughts. I can certainly tell you that the term "misplaced arrogance" ecapsulates Dubya and the neo-cons actions the last 6 years.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

Did you think you were providing me with information by saying that? And its not "god" its "gods."



Thats a straw man and you know it. You're playing word games with what most people mean by the word god. The disbelief in a supernatural entity is completely unrelated to love and compassion, and to say that atheists reject love and compassionate is being intellectually dishonest at best.



See above.



You have got to be joking. That logic does not follow.

One can be loving and compassionate without belief in anything supernatural because it is in ones character. Its terribly presumptuous of you to insist that by being loving one is not really an atheist. Your whole argument presupposes the existence of god.

"You're not an atheist, because god exists." :roll: What utter tripe.

THANK YOU, Lachean. I'd like to think that one of the site's most prolific posters would have learned to back up his arguments a little by now... if he really believes that all the world's nice atheists (most of us, I should think) HAVE to believe in certain "gods" to be nice, he should probably read some evolutionary theory. This all goes back to, as Dawkins says it, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", in other words, the nice monkeys who lived by the golden rule ensured that other monkeys would be nice to them, allowing them to have many children. (Note: that is a quite simplified version of that story). Atheists can be nice because we live by The Golden Rule. (Of course, now Jerry will say that makes us Confucianists)

 

[dragonslayer]

I have vote for atheists. I have to believe in how they live and think of others and this has little to with Being an athiest. Moral and personal ethics have little to do with religion, but have to with human living together in Groups.

Whether a person does a good job in office has little to do with religion or lack of Religion. It has to do with intelligence and information about a particular subject.

 

[Schweddy]

A person applying for the position of President simply must have my same morals before I could vote for them.

Are they a lesser person than me? Absolutely not. I cannot judge that.
Could they do the job? Probably.
Do they believe in love and compassion? I do not see religion as a factor actually.
Is an atheist person intelligent? Depends on the person.

With all these questions answered for me above - my position has not changed. I could not vote in good conscious for a President that is not Christian. They simply must represent my values before the lever gets pulled in their favor.

 

[Jerry]

Did you think you were providing me with information by saying that? And its not "god" its "gods."

Thats a straw man and you know it. You're playing word games with what most people mean by the word god. The disbelief in a supernatural entity is completely unrelated to love and compassion, and to say that atheists reject love and compassionate is being intellectually dishonest at best.

See above.

You have got to be joking. That logic does not follow.

One can be loving and compassionate without belief in anything supernatural because it is in ones character. Its terribly presumptuous of you to insist that by being loving one is not really an atheist. Your whole argument presupposes the existence of god.

"You're not an atheist, because god exists." :roll: What utter tripe.

You sound like you just oppose the notion of a personified walking person of a God, not God per-se. You reject one of many possible concepts of God, but by embracing love and compassion you inherently embrace a number of other concepts of God, and divorce yourself from Atheism.

An Atheist does not embrace any concept of God at all, not even the most abstract of prime moving forces, therefore an Atheist does not embrace love and compassion.

I would be open to voting for the Zen Buddhist who did not subscribe to even one notion of a personified Lord, a living, walking breathing being with 'magickal' powers, etc, because such a Buddhist still believes in God by perusing supreme forces such as love and compassion.

The Atheist peruses only their own selfishness, misguided and lost in their own flawed reasoning of the world, seeing themselves as wise in their own eyes because they use a *relative measure of right and wrong.

Categorically, the Atheist is a fool, and I would not vote to give her power.

 

[Apostle13]

Categorically, the Atheist is a fool, and I would not vote to give her power.

Well the bible certainly backs that one... Psalm 53:1

 

[nope]

I don't know many people of my age or younger personally who are theists thus believe in a god. If my generation is old enough, I don't think there will be much non Atheists left to vote for. As I am an Atheist myself, don't have aproblem with this developpement.
Sure I'd vote for an Atheist. My problems are some Theists. They seem like they are not able to control themselve. When you look at the Islamists form an objective perspective, it looks like every men wants to every women and they don't think they could hold themselves back when they look at a women. I think that's a bit pathetic or maybe it's just a lack of self-confidence.
What if during their time in office they loose their faith, which holds them back from doing different things?

And because of the people who don't like Atheists because the communists have been Atheists. Read the bible. Jesus was a little communist himself except the thing with Marx and his Anti-Religion campaign.

I think it's not really interesting what a president believes, because you never know if he really believes. I don't even know for sure what the current president believes. Either nothing or is Katholic. What does it matter everybody likes him or at least the vast majority.

PS: Talking about Austria (President Heinz Fischer). But our President doesn't have as much power as in the States. It's more like we have a nice President we are a nice country. Don't know what he actually does except telling our parties to stop fighting and forming a coalition. I start thinking our politicians don't like ruling and prefer eeeeennnnnnnddddlllleeeeeeeeesssssssssss negotiations.

 

[Jerry]

I don't know many people of my age or younger personally who are theists thus believe in a god. If my generation is old enough, I don't think there will be much non Atheists left to vote for. As I am an Atheist myself, don't have aproblem with this developpement.
Sure I'd vote for an Atheist. My problems are some Theists. They seem like they are not able to control themselve. When you look at the Islamists form an objective perspective, it looks like every men wants to every women and they don't think they could hold themselves back when they look at a women. I think that's a bit pathetic or maybe it's just a lack of self-confidence.
What if during their time in office they loose their faith, which holds them back from doing different things?

And because of the people who don't like Atheists because the communists have been Atheists. Read the bible. Jesus was a little communist himself except the thing with Marx and his Anti-Religion campaign.

I think it's not really interesting what a president believes, because you never know if he really believes. I don't even know for sure what the current president believes. Either nothing or is Katholic. What does it matter everybody likes him or at least the vast majority.

PS: Talking about Austria (President Heinz Fischer). But our President doesn't have as much power as in the States. It's more like we have a nice President we are a nice country. Don't know what he actually does except telling our parties to stop fighting and forming a coalition. I start thinking our politicians don't like ruling and prefer eeeeennnnnnnddddlllleeeeeeeeesssssssssss negotiations.

What the world needs is fewer politicians and more statesmen.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You reject one of many possible concepts of God, but by embracing love and compassion you inherently embrace a number of other concepts of God, and divorce yourself from Atheism.

Love and compassion have their roots in the brain, not god. You're equating god to natural human emotions, when the word implies a supernatural diety.

An Atheist does not embrace any concept of God at all, not even the most abstract of prime moving forces, therefore an Atheist does not embrace love and compassion.

Again, how does the disbelief in supernatural god prevent one from embracing love and compassion.

I think you're problem is you disregard what secular humanists stand for because of the things they don't believe in.

I would be open to voting for the Zen Buddhist who did not subscribe to even one notion of a personified Lord, a living, walking breathing being with 'magickal' powers, etc, because such a Buddhist still believes in God by perusing supreme forces such as love and compassion.

What? Buddhist do not believe in supernatural deities, that makes them atheist. And being atheist doesn't make one incapable of love or compassion. They are NOT "supreme forces."

The Atheist peruses only their own selfishness, misguided and lost in their own flawed reasoning of the world, seeing themselves as wise in their own eyes because they use a *relative measure of right and wrong.

Our genes make us selfish, for survival. Being Atheist has nothing to do with selfishness.

You only call it flawed reasoning because you have failed to overcome their challenge to provide them with a reason to believe in your god.

Categorically, the Atheist is a fool, and I would not vote to give her power.

What category are you talking about?

You sound like you just oppose the notion of a personified walking person of a God, not God per-se.

I wanted to finish with this, although it was your first statement. I don't oppose the notion, i'm skeptical of it. I would like to believe in one, but that alone isn't justification. Understand that the moment and of you comes up with proof, I'll change my story.

You know what you sound like. You sound like someone who equates god to almost anything, so that you can find god in everything, in love, in rocks, in beauty. This is merely semantics. When I use the word god, I mean a supernatural personal deity. One who has either initiated or continues to meddle in this universe.

And if you want to continue to play games with semantics, the only gods you'll show me to believe in are natural ones. The Einsteinian god that is nature, the universe (or multiverse) in all of its (their) complexity and mystery. It is where I experience the sense of reverence and awe.

But never a petty, humanoid, meddling tyrant, for whom there is no proof nor reason for belief, nor worship. Yahweh as Dawkins put it, is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

 

[Jerry]

Stop right here....

I don't oppose the notion, i'm skeptical of it.

...then you are not an Atheist....you are an Agnostic....and I would be open to voting for an agnostic.

Once that is clear I would be glad to continue.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Stop right here....

Pssst... Stop what? I wasn't here when you posted.

...then you are not an Atheist....you are an Agnostic....and I would be open to voting for an agnostic.

Sorry, the free dictionary is crap, which is why you are in semantic error. Please refer to Webster's definition of atheist. (Unless you're from the UK and prefer the Oxford)

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

I believe that there are no supernatural personal deities. But I am not "opposed" to the idea. The idea is very pleasant, I just don't believe in any past or present human's claims on the existence of one. Jupiter, thor or Yahweh. Each were terrible objects of worship for which they had no proof.

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

This does not represent my opinion because I am also a pantheist (Which as Dawkins put it, is just sexed up atheism.)Which means that any "ultimate reality" would be natural, not supernatural, and within the forces and laws of nature if it exists. But thanks for trying to tell me what I think again, where would I be without you. So can you not please address everything else I said, it was kinda important, to me at least.

Once that is clear I would be glad to continue.

Then I hope we are now clear, unless you want to argue over semantics of something we could have otherwise easily agreed upon, in terms.

So how about you use my terms for my position, and we agree that the word god implies a supernatural deity, which also implies creator and/or meddler. Because that kinda "god" is one that we have no evidence of, and also because I really hate when people try to misrepresent my position.

Oh and you can go ahead and not continue to link to me words I already know, its very presumptuous and a waste of effort on your behalf.

 

[1069]

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

True; the term "atheist" has no inherent negative connotation, despite the negativity with which theists seek to imbue it; it is a morally neutral term, it's meaning being, more or less, "non-theist".
A person opposed to theism or deism or to the idea of a deity would be an "antitheist", technically speaking.

 

[Apostle13]

True; the term "atheist" has no inherent negative connotation, despite the negativity with which theists seek to imbue it; it is a morally neutral term, it's meaning being, more or less, "non-theist".
A person opposed to theism or deism or to the idea of a deity would be an "antitheist", technically speaking.

An atheist is resolved in their belief there is no God... Whereas an agnostic may tend to believe or not, but are neither convinced or resolute... This (agnosticism) would be in human terms, default.
However this is controversial only to the atheists... Cause to believe no God brings forth tendency to advocate such... This implies religion. God forbid you call an atheist religious.

 

[Jerry]

Pssst... Stop what? I wasn't here when you posted.

Sorry, the free dictionary is crap, which is why you are in semantic error. Please refer to Webster's definition of atheist. (Unless you're from the UK and prefer the Oxford)

I believe that there are no supernatural personal deities. But I am not "opposed" to the idea. The idea is very pleasant, I just don't believe in any past or present human's claims on the existence of one. Jupiter, thor or Yahweh. Each were terrible objects of worship for which they had no proof.

This does not represent my opinion because I am also a pantheist (Which as Dawkins put it, is just sexed up atheism.)Which means that any "ultimate reality" would be natural, not supernatural, and within the forces and laws of nature if it exists. But thanks for trying to tell me what I think again, where would I be without you. So can you not please address everything else I said, it was kinda important, to me at least.

Then I hope we are now clear, unless you want to argue over semantics of something we could have otherwise easily agreed upon, in terms.

If Free Dictionary is not trusted, I will not use it.

I do trust Webster and accept it's definitions.

You have made it clear that you are not agnostic, but atheist.

I do, however, need father clarity:

You say that you are also pantheistic, which means that you subscribe to a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.

Yet when I equate God with the natural forces of love and compassion, you dissent.

Why?

As a pantheist, is not gravity one such "proof" to you that God exists?

Would not the the answer to the Unifying Theory of Everything be "his" name?

Also, if as a pantheist you equate God with natural forces, and as an atheist you deny God in the same breath, would you not therefore deny gravity; as surly an attribute of God can not exist if God itself does not exist.

It seems to me that pantheism and atheism are in opposition to each other, as Atheism denies the God which pantheism equates to natural laws and forces.

 

[1069]

Cause to believe no God brings forth tendency to advocate such...

Please provide evidence that this is the case.
I know a great many atheists, and in few if any of them has their lack of belief in a big, invisible, supernatural entity "brought forth a tendency to advocate such".
Most of them have far more important fish to fry.