# A U.S president who's an atheist



## rapidfox1

Would you be comfortable with having an American president who's an atheist. I learned that in this book, most Americans would not. I'd be comfortable as long as he or she doesn't try to ban religions.


----------



## Josie

I just recently read that more and more people would vote for an atheist president. I wouldn't fear anything based on their atheism alone-- why should I? I believe there are plenty of rational and respectful atheists out there who would love our country and try to further it. There's other factors to judge on, of course, so whether or not I would actually vote for them would depend on other things.

If anything, I'm a little hesitant about religious political leaders. More specifically, I'm hesitant about people who say, "These are the rules MY religion follows, you need to follow them too, even if you're not part of my religion!" Not in those words, of course, but that's largely the sentiment when you come across, "This law should be this way because the bible says..."


----------



## poepoe

i would honestly support that quality in a politician. then they couldn't be corrupted by their religion! just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they don't have morals and such


----------



## anonymid

Sure.

It's still a long way off, though. Right now it would be political suicide for a U.S. presidential candidate to come out as an atheist, and it probably will be for the foreseeable future. "I'm an atheist" is about the most politically incorrect thing a candidate for national office in America could say.


----------



## millenniumman75

rapidfox1 said:


> Would you be comfortable with having an American president who's an atheist. I learned that in this book, most Americans would not. I'd be comfortable as long as he or she doesn't try to ban religions.


...as if this Presidency isn't close to it. No - I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


----------



## Monroee

I would be much more comfortable with an atheist president than a religious president. (Note: I'm not an atheist.) When I hear presidential candidates talk about their views in terms of religion, it makes me extremely fearful and suspicious. I don't want a president to be completely biased on issues because of their religious beliefs. I want a completely objective president. For example, the issues of abortion and gay marriage are totally screwed over because politicians are letting their religious beliefs interfere with what would be best for the citizens of their country. I believe in separation of church and state. And the best way for that to truly happen is probably with an atheist president.


----------



## Raging Squid

Honestly I absolutely do not care what the president believes in, as long as they keep it to themselves and out of national affairs. Democrats do a well enough job of this, Republicans make me sick on the other hand, bigoted pricks.


----------



## VagueResemblance

millenniumman75 said:


> ...as if this Presidency isn't close to it.


How so? Got anything specific?

As for me, well.... look at the state of our government. Dominated by christians and obscenely corrupt. James Inhofe, the congressman from BP, is a devout christian, and there are many others like him. Then there are Santorum types that'd just love to ram their religion and their twisted morality down my throat.

Sure. I'd trust an atheist politician. Certainly over one that calls himself christian.


----------



## VIncymon

What's the difference between that and any president in the last 20 years ?

The only difference would be that the president actually admit that he's atheist.


----------



## laura024

Monroee said:


> I would be much more comfortable with an atheist president than a religious president. (Note: I'm not an atheist.) When I hear presidential candidates talk about their views in terms of religion, it makes me extremely fearful and suspicious. I don't want a president to be completely biased on issues because of their religious beliefs. I want a completely objective president. For example, the issues of abortion and gay marriage are totally screwed over because politicians are letting their religious beliefs interfere with what would be best for the citizens of their country. I believe in separation of church and state. And the best way for that to truly happen is probably with an atheist president.


All of this, except I'm an atheist. 
If only more people emphasized separation of church and state.


----------



## Foh_Teej

millenniumman75 said:


> I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


Why?


----------



## huh

Foh_Teej said:


> Why?


Because they are baby eating satan worshippers of course.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn

I really wouldn't care whether a president was an atheist or religious. I wouldn't care if he was an atheist, as long as he didn't try to ban religion, and I wouldn't care if he was religious, as long as he didn't try to enforce his religion onto others (unfortunately, many do). I would likely vote based on other factors.

Although, as an atheist, I can say it would be neat to have an atheist president.


----------



## Noca

Religion needs to be completely removed from politics, government and law.


----------



## Whatev

I just want someone thats actually going to turn this country around first, we can deal with his religion or lack there of later.


----------



## JustThisGuy

laura024 said:


> All of this, except I'm an atheist.
> If only more people emphasized separation of church and state.





Dr House said:


> Religion needs to be completely removed from politics, government and law.


:yes

I agree with Monroee. Objective politics is the way to go. I mean, it's already hard enough without personal jargon clogging up the gears of the branches of government.

Also, Jefferson and Lincoln were arguably atheists. Of course, back then...well, even now, a person running for office would be afraid to say they don't believe in god, even if indirectly. They believe it hurts their politics and character. And I'm talking about those who went to church. Think of how many are in churches based on family and social stigmas not to, not because they believe. It's weird to think about. But yea, how many presidents, kings, czars, etc. were atheists.

Anyways, I'd be more than fine with it. More good than bad could come from it. Again, no chance of religious zealotry gumming up the works of goverment. Then again, it's just the president. It wouldn't absolve all religion from goverment if s/he was.

Also, there's no way a president, atheist or no, could ban religion. It's an indelible right to believe whatever you want to believe in. I'd be fine with a thicker distance between religion and governing bodies, though, that's for sure.


----------



## T-Bone

I don't care about their religious beliefs or lack there of. I care about their ability to make good choices. But regardless, it isn't happening anytime soon. Just like the chances of a single man with no children becoming president aren't good either.


----------



## applesauce5482

I wouldn't vote based on religious beliefs. I would vote on how much I agree with their policies


----------



## ugh1979

millenniumman75 said:


> ...as if this Presidency isn't close to it. No - I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


But you would with a Mormon one?


----------



## ugh1979

SomebodyWakeME said:


> I don't care about their religious beliefs or lack there of. I care about their ability to make good choices.


Aren't the two inextricably linked?

I know I simply can't rely on someone religious to make good choices.



> But regardless, it isn't happening anytime soon.


How long would say is 'soon'.


----------



## T-Bone

ugh1979 said:


> Aren't the two inextricably linked?


No.


----------



## ugh1979

SomebodyWakeME said:


> No.


OK well maybe only subjectively inextricably linked then, as they are most definitely in my opinion.


----------



## targetbuddy

Separation of church and state is about protecting religion from the government, not the government from religion. I would be comfortable with it, but not MORE comfortable. I wouldn't trust an atheist president more just because he or she is an atheist.


----------



## T-Bone

ugh1979 said:


> OK well maybe only subjectively inextricably linked then, as they are most definitely in my opinion.


If the decisions made by a president are not based on any personal religious beliefs, they can't be linked. They could be based on morals, but morals don't have to come from religion either. 
Something like spending/reducing a nation's debt has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## ugh1979

SomebodyWakeME said:


> If the decisions made by a president are not based on any personal religious beliefs, they can't be linked. They could be based on morals, but morals don't have to come from religion either.
> Something like spending/reducing a nation's debt has nothing to do with religion.


We were talking about their ability to make decisions. If someone's reasoning skills are bad in one area then I'd be inclined to believe their reasoning skills are bad in others, so I wouldn't trust them to make good decisions.


----------



## T-Bone

ugh1979 said:


> We were talking about their ability to make decisions. If someone's reasoning skills are bad in one area then I'd be inclined to believe their reasoning skills are bad in others, so I wouldn't trust them to make good decisions.


Right...? I agree with that.


----------



## albrecht

ugh1979 said:


> We were talking about their ability to make decisions. If someone's reasoning skills are bad in one area then I'd be inclined to believe their reasoning skills are bad in others, so I wouldn't trust them to make good decisions.


Not necessarily. Read John Schumaker's _The Corruption of Reality_.


----------



## ugh1979

albrecht said:


> Not necessarily. Read John Schumaker's _The Corruption of Reality_.


Rather than me go and buy the book, read it and come back to reply, can you summarise it?


----------



## Joe

poepoe said:


> i would honestly support that quality in a politician. then they couldn't be corrupted by their religion! just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they don't have morals and such


I'm not from the US but I agree with this, look at Rick Santorum for bad morals and religion (or by what I've heard 90% of the southern US). But if the presidents religion doesn't affect how they treat people (Examples include Santorum's views on gay people) then I don't think its such a big deal.


----------



## targetbuddy

jJoe said:


> I'm not from the US but I agree with this, look at Rick Santorum for bad morals and religion (or by what I've heard 90% of the southern US). But if the presidents religion doesn't affect how they treat people (Examples include Santorum's views on gay people) then I don't think its such a big deal.


The thing is, it's not just the obvious nutjobs like Santorum. Most career politicians know that playing your cards toward a religious group is going to get you a lot more votes. US politics are really ****ed up right now.


----------



## Joe

targetbuddy said:


> The thing is, it's not just the obvious nutjobs like Santorum. Most career politicians know that playing your cards toward a religious group is going to get you a lot more votes. US politics are really ****ed up right now.


That's a good point, this thread might be more justly named "A U.S president who is openly atheist". Every president has been Christian so far, maybe because of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...esidents_of_the_United_States#The_irreligious


----------



## Zerix

Dr House said:


> Religion needs to be completely removed from politics, government and law.


And maybe then mankind will live A LITTLE BIT longer :idea


----------



## VagueResemblance

Still very curious how exactly Obama is close to banning religion.


----------



## albrecht

ugh1979 said:


> Rather than me go and buy the book, read it and come back to reply, can you summarise it?


It's a bit difficult to explain in only a few sentences, but Schumaker basically argues that religious belief is sustained by dissociation and suggestion. In a similar way that sufferers of childhood trauma can "forget" their traumata, i.e. knowing that they were hurt but not letting that knowledge into their conscious, dissociative mental processes basically allow multiple conscious's (or layers of the conscious) to organize reality in specialized ways, thus while one may _know_ that the information/beliefs may contradict each other, one will also _not_ know because the information/beliefs are specialized into separate order-generating dimensions of the conscious mind. We acquire contradictory beliefs when certain dimensions of the conscious mind are, by suggestion for example (in the form of church services, prayer, meditation, mantras, and other dissociative practices), swept past higher-order critical thought processes. In short, the brain needs only a little information to begin producing _beliefs_ about reality, to organize perception and thought, and it doesn't have to do this on one large floor of consciousness, but may construct multiple levels which do not always cohere with one another. Hence one who affirms on a daily basis that there is a beautiful, joyous afterlife where there is no suffering will nevertheless weep at the death of a loved one.


----------



## yourfavestoner

I don't believe Barack Obama is actually religious. He just claims to be because he'd never be elected otherwise.

I don't think an atheist will ever be elected to the presidency. Although the country has trended slightly in that direction with laughable religions losing support, I don't think it'll reach the point where an atheist can win.


----------



## Foh_Teej

First of all, a president CANNOT ban a religion as the excutive branch cannot enact laws. Even by executive order, the courts would strike it down in a heart beat as being unconstitutional. I don't even know why the OP would even remotely fear this as a possibility.


----------



## NeedleInTheHay

millenniumman75 said:


> *...as if this Presidency isn't close to it.* No - I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


:rofl any evidence to back up that claim?


----------



## Crystalline

I believe a good many politicians are nonreligious. (As a majority of scientists are actually). They just don't believe it's good for their political career to admit it, given today's backwards society. Give a few generations or so and we'll see them all come out of the woodwork when it's finally acceptable and the hardcore nutjobs retire or die out.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070313_prominent_politician_breaks_the_god_barrier/


----------



## ugh1979

yourfavestoner said:


> I don't believe Barack Obama is actually religious. He just claims to be because he'd never be elected otherwise.
> 
> I don't think an atheist will ever be elected to the presidency. Although the country has trended slightly in that direction with laughable religions losing support, I don't think it'll reach the point where an atheist can win.


Nonsense, society is clearly moving in the direction of increased atheism. Just look at every other developed country in the world, it never decreases. Atheism only grows in majority belief in populations. It's very short sighted to think that atheism won't grow into the majority belief in the UK, which then it means no openly religious president will win majority favour.

Can you imagine an openly Mormon person like Romney getting elected in somewhere like the UK? Not a chance! You need to look beyond your own borders to see how the developed world works everywhere else.

State leaders always generally reflect the beliefs of the majority of voters, so in time an atheist president is inevitable.

Religious following is doomed in terms of the majority belief system. This is evident in every developed society and can't be denied. There is simply no way back.


----------



## ugh1979

Crystalline said:


> I believe a good many politicians are nonreligious. (As a majority of scientists are actually). They just don't believe it's good for their political career to admit it, given today's backwards society. Give a few generations or so and we'll see them all come out of the woodwork when it's finally acceptable and the hardcore nutjobs retire or die out.
> 
> http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070313_prominent_politician_breaks_the_god_barrier/


Indeed, it's just a matter of time before the old guard who grew up without the access to eduction in and unfiltered information that we now have die out.

These things take time, and it takes a few generations to change, which is nothing in terms of time really! We've been evolving for millions of years, so just imagine how much things will change in 100, 500 or 1,000 years. We'll move far beyond primitive theistic beliefs.


----------



## ugh1979

Foh_Teej said:


> First of all, a president CANNOT ban a religion as the excutive branch cannot enact laws. Even by executive order, the courts would strike it down in a heart beat as being unconstitutional. I don't even know why the OP would even remotely fear this as a possibility.


I think the OP thinks we'll all become dictator ruled communist states where that could happen. It simply can't in this day and age. Our global community is too well connected.


----------



## ugh1979

yourfavestoner said:


> I don't believe Barack Obama is actually religious. He just claims to be because he'd never be elected otherwise.


Indeed, he's too intelligent to be religious! Yet he's also smart enough to claim he is so as to be acceptable to the mindless religious hordes of middle America that are unfortunately needed to put him there.


----------



## targetbuddy

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, it's just a matter of time before the old guard who grew up without the access to eduction in and unfiltered information that we now have die out.
> 
> These things take time, and it takes a few generations to change, which is nothing in terms of time really! We've been evolving for millions of years, so just imagine how much things will change in 100, 500 or 1,000 years. We'll move far beyond primitive theistic beliefs.


I don't think humanity will ever move past theistic beliefs. As long as there are unexplained mysteries in the universe, people will try to say that they are beyond our understanding.


----------



## ugh1979

albrecht said:


> It's a bit difficult to explain in only a few sentences, but Schumaker basically argues that religious belief is sustained by dissociation and suggestion. In a similar way that sufferers of childhood trauma can "forget" their traumata, i.e. knowing that they were hurt but not letting that knowledge into their conscious, dissociative mental processes basically allow multiple conscious's (or layers of the conscious) to organize reality in specialized ways, thus while one may _know_ that the information/beliefs may contradict each other, one will also _not_ know because the information/beliefs are specialized into separate order-generating dimensions of the conscious mind. We acquire contradictory beliefs when certain dimensions of the conscious mind are, by suggestion for example (in the form of church services, prayer, meditation, mantras, and other dissociative practices), swept past higher-order critical thought processes. In short, the brain needs only a little information to begin producing _beliefs_ about reality, to organize perception and thought, and it doesn't have to do this on one large floor of consciousness, but may construct multiple levels which do not always cohere with one another. Hence one who affirms on a daily basis that there is a beautiful, joyous afterlife where there is no suffering will nevertheless weep at the death of a loved one.


OK I understand. It sounds like a low IQ poorly connected mind that it could happen in though. I do know some people just don't join the dots though and are followers rather than thinkers.

Some people just don't think.


----------



## ugh1979

targetbuddy said:


> I don't think humanity will ever move past theistic beliefs. As long as there are unexplained mysteries in the universe, people will try to say that they are beyond our understanding.


Oh yeah I don't think it will be eradicated, just become a minority belief, like it is in much of northern Europe already. I've only ever met 4 Christians in my life! :lol

However there will always be people who want to think there is more to their lives than there is and follow outlandish fanciful stories rather than challenging their often feeble minds to actually grasp and accept modern knowledge.

It's not easy understanding the universe, and of some people struggle to accept that they aren't special and that they don't have the privilege of an afterlife.


----------



## jingybopa

millenniumman75 said:


> ...as if this Presidency isn't close to it. No - I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


 Would you comfortable with a muslim....jewish....hindu....buddhist...(you get the idea) president? or you being a good "christian" only comfortable with presidents who happen to be christians?


----------



## ugh1979

millenniumman75 said:


> ...as if this Presidency isn't close to it. No - I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


*cough* But you would with a Mormon one?

Please don't duck the direct question I asked you.


----------



## Idgie

Well, we have had presidents who are non Christian and didn't believe in religion in the traditional sense ( Lincoln, Jefferson). In today's America though, with the religious right having so much influence and voters being more polarized than ever before, I think it would take at least a generation or so before an atheist could stand a chance.


----------



## albrecht

ugh1979 said:


> OK I understand. It sounds like a low IQ poorly connected mind that it could happen in though. I do know some people just don't join the dots though and are followers rather than thinkers.
> 
> Some people just don't think.


I don't think there's a connection between dissociation and IQ. It's not solely a religious phenomenon. We distort reality in all kinds of ways, most of which are harmless (and in some cases make us happier), e.g. whatever the case may be, thinking that we're smart, or funny, or kind, or likable, or that we are destined for a better job or relationship. These beliefs or states of mind may collapse with experience at one time or another, but acting or not acting on these beliefs doesn't necessarily make a person less or more intelligent.

The bottom line of religion (this is a generalization, of course) is that the source or ground of existence is benevolent or works in our favor. Orthodoxy, perhaps, is the perception of the eschatological "gesture" by which this benevolence is made known, how it is being performed (or how it can be or must be encountered). So it's _not_ like the analogy between religion and a group of blind people clutching a different part of the elephant. It's not that people perceive different parts of the same benevolence, same source of existence. It's that the gesture, for them, _is_ the thing. If you take away the gesture, nothing of either the source or the divine favor remains.

So in the relation between dissociation and religious belief it's more important to look at what the gesture _achieves_ as it is oriented toward the future than at the gesture itself, in the same way that one might look at the performances or acts that people hinge their often distorted but optimistic beliefs about themselves on.

It's difficult to say whether "maximalist realism" is synonymous with intelligence or wisdom, if intelligence or wisdom is more about an orientation toward acting in the world than toward simply forming theories that seem to correspond to the world. Reality, in the way we encounter it, is functional, not merely objective.


----------



## UltraShy

Seems rather silly to even talk of the possibility of an atheist president when it seems nobody can even manage to name more than one openly atheist elected official in the entire nation.

Just try it. Name anyone who's openly an atheist & holds any elected office at all.

Keep in mind the staggering number of elected positions there are at the federal, state, and local levels. Find me an atheist on in Congress -- gee, you can't find even 1 out of 535? Let's expand our search to even the most lowly of positions like village president, or school board member, or municipal clerk. Find any yet?

I see MM75 would be uncomfortable with an atheist president -- how about a Mormon president? Afraid he might force you to marry several wives?

Obama doesn't strike me as religious, though he knows how to toss in enough references to "god" as required to keep poll numbers up.


----------



## ugh1979

UltraShy said:


> Seems rather silly to even talk of the possibility of an atheist president when it seems nobody can even manage to name more than one openly atheist elected official in the entire nation.
> 
> Just try it. Name anyone who's openly an atheist & holds any elected office at all.
> 
> Keep in mind the staggering number of elected positions there are at the federal, state, and local levels. Find me an atheist on in Congress -- gee, you can't find even 1 out of 535? Let's expand our search to even the most lowly of positions like village president, or school board member, or municipal clerk. Find any yet?


Pete Stark is the only openly athiest congressman, and there is Ernie Chambers, Nebraska State Senator.

That's it. :lol



> I see MM75 would be uncomfortable with an atheist president -- how about a Mormon president? Afraid he might force you to marry several wives?


Indeed, a question i've been asking the theists who fear an athiest president.


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass

I don't think religion or non-religion changes how someone leads a country, but as long as they don't hate on religious people than I'd be ok with it because religious presidents don't hate on us.


----------



## Adversary

I am pretty sure we have already had a president who was atheist. Its just that none of them were stupid enough to admit it. That would be instant career suicide.


----------



## jsgt

rapidfox1 said:


> Would you be comfortable with having an American president who's an atheist. I learned that in this book, most Americans would not. I'd be comfortable as long as he or she doesn't try to ban religions.


Yes, and that would make it the first time I ever voted. I think they would bring a more thoughtful and considerate approach to their policies. Though, this isn't to say that they would run this country like a well oiled machine, just saying that I would give them my vote in hopes of some change from the past "leaders" that have been in DC.

...and of course the majority of Americans wouldn't be comfortable with a president who's atheist. Most Americans are religious, and don't like anything that's a threat to their belief system.


----------



## 0lly

Hang on a minute, I thought the US was the first (only?) state founded explicitly as a secular state. The more secular the state, the greater the religious pluralism; since no one particular religion is being favoured. Religious people who want the state to be more religious are hurting their own cause, since it would reduce pluralism. So why the hell are presbyterians/evangelists/catholics (take your pick of loony) so eager for a mormon? Simple answer: they haven't thought it through.


----------



## Brad

Let's be real, a good amount of politicians from both parties are probably Atheist. They just don't say that because it's politically inconvenient. I do, however, think that someone that openly identifies as Atheist will be elected some day. Belief in religion has been drastically decreasing as of late, especially with the Internet. It's only a matter of time before Atheists are in the majority. Could be 30 years, could be 100. But it will happen I believe. Especially with the way technology is advancing. I mean who would've thought a black guy would've been president when only a few decades ago they were still segregated.


----------



## Brad

0lly said:


> Hang on a minute, I thought the US was the first (only?) state founded explicitly as a secular state. The more secular the state, the greater the religious pluralism; since no one particular religion is being favoured. Religious people who want the state to be more religious are hurting their own cause, since it would reduce pluralism. So why the hell are presbyterians/evangelists/catholics (take your pick of loony) so eager for a mormon? Simple answer: they haven't thought it through.


Most Americans plug their ears and yell whenever they hear someone mention that. They will just deny the fact that the separation of search and state exists and will claim the America is a Christian nation.


----------



## Brad

millenniumman75 said:


> I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


Why?


----------



## HarryStanluv25

I'd be all for it, and since I don't vote or care about politics would just vote for the atheist guy, just because he is one! It would be a nice change, I'd like to see it happen.


----------



## UltraShy

ugh1979 said:


> Pete Stark is the only openly athiest congressman, and there is Ernie Chambers, Nebraska State Senator.
> 
> That's it. :lol


I'm quite impressed. You've already topped the previous winner of "Find an Atheist" by 100%!


----------



## Freiheit

To answer the OP: Yes


----------



## flagg lives

i would feel more comfortable, I want someone who's going to push the button and doesn't think the people he's about to kill get to spend an eternity after death in peace. the idea that this is it adds more necessary gravity to situations


----------



## Neptunus

> Would you be comfortable with having an American president who's an atheist.


Absolutely!


----------



## Slimeball

I don't really think our government acts in a very Christian way, despite people saying god bless every two seconds. I sure wish religions would just die out.


----------



## Gusthebus

I could care less the religion of a politician. All I wanna know is are they actually gonna fix things or just rep the status quo?


----------



## sleepytime

I wouldn't be surprised if you've already had an atheist president. In fact, I'd say it's odds on that you've had one. Any politician with an ambition to be president knows that being a christian is a prerequisite for the position, and it's not like politicians are the most honest of people, they'll tell the public whatever they want to hear in order to get their votes.


----------



## MiMiK

millenniumman75 said:


> ...as if this Presidency isn't close to it. No - I would not be comfortable with an Atheist President.


why? is it just because he would not hold the same ideology as your own? what if he was the best qualified for the job?


----------



## Metus

VagueResemblance said:


> How so? Got anything specific?


By his own account, Barrack Obama isn't really a Christian. Unless of course he's completely ignorant of the most basic of Christian doctrine. I doubt that very much to be the case. He is no idiot.



JustThisGuy said:


> :yes
> Also, Jefferson and Lincoln were arguably atheists.


They most certainly were not. They were men of strong faith. Any basic reading of their writings would reveal that to be obvious.

I'd take an atheist over someone who simply attends a church for political expediency any day. There are Christians I wouldn't vote for. I'd also feel more comfortable with an atheist than someone of certain faiths, particularly those who have beliefs incompatible with Western values.

I disagree with atheism preventing someone from being elected office. I don't think that is the case but it could hurt someone for votes in the Deep South. Everyone else would see it as the trivial issue that it is.


----------



## bottleofblues

In most other western countrys it probably wouldn't be a big deal but in America it'll probably be a long time before that'll happen. Then again they said that about there being a black president so there's hope yet.


----------



## JustThisGuy

Metus said:


> They most certainly were not. They were men of strong faith. Any basic reading of their writings would reveal that to be obvious.


Hence the "arguably" part of the sentence. But also, it's funny you bring up "basic readings of their writings" because that's where their possible atheism holds sway.

_"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - _Jefferson

There's a good few others from him. I actually never read this entire quote until now. I'd only heard the quote to the "uniformity" part.

---

_"The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked." _- Lincoln

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession." - Lincoln

To what context they're specifically meant from the stand point of his personal beliefs is unknown...but I could hazard a guess.  The simplest answer is usually the right one.


----------



## Arcane

They probably won't admit to being atheist just to get voted in, though.


----------



## Bec de Corbin

An atheist politician would have one less pretend act.

A christian/religious politician would struggle being somebody who he/she isn't.


----------



## Melinda

I'm willing to bet America has had at least one closet atheist president in the past. I doubt we'll have a confessed atheist in office anytime soon.


----------



## The Sorrow

Atheism is also a religion.
I do not care for Atheism, Protestantism, Mormonism or any other false religion, they all the same in fundament.


----------



## Minipurz

The Sorrow said:


> Atheism is also a religion.
> I do not care for Atheism, Protestantism, Mormonism or any other false religion, they all the same in fundament.


How is atheism a religion ? :idea thats like saying that, not playing football is a sport. :/ or that not drawing is an artform.


----------



## The Sorrow

Minipurz said:


> How is atheism a religion ? :idea thats like saying that, not playing football is a sport. :/ or that not drawing is an artform.


In logic A is just a statement like not A. Saying there is no God is just a believe like saying there is a God. 
Also doing nothing is also doing something.


----------



## millenniumman75

Arcane said:


> They probably won't admit to being atheist just to get voted in, though.


Obama acts like he is pretty close and look what has allowed to happen in the last seven days! That is the result. He basically withheld stuff about himself - that is a lie by omission.

An atheist President will have an absolutely neutral to negative impact on the country. We are seeing a small sample of it right now, before our very eyes. Twenty-one countries with skirmishes so far? That's not a good thing. It does wonders for foreign policy when our ambassadors aren't safe in the countries they are assigned.


----------



## ugh1979

The Sorrow said:


> Atheism is also a religion.
> I do not care for Atheism, Protestantism, Mormonism or any other false religion, they all the same in fundament.


In what way are they all the same in 'fundament'?

Surely the fundamental belief of a religion is a belief in a god?


----------



## The Sorrow

ugh1979 said:


> In what way are they all the same in 'fundament'?
> 
> Surely the fundamental belief of a religion is a belief in a god?


Buddhism is often considered as a religion and it does not necessarily have the believe in a God. OK, I have to say that it depends on definition. However atheists believe in something like all religions do, every separation is artificial.
What I original wanted to say is that atheists have a wrong believe like most religions do.


----------



## ugh1979

The Sorrow said:


> Buddhism is often considered as a religion and it does not necessarily have the believe in a God.


There's always exceptions, but you didn't even mention Buddhism.



> OK, I have to say that it depends on definition.


Indeed. I'm atheistic about all the gods that mankind has invented over the millennia. I can't say for sure there isn't something someone could call 'god' running the show.



> However atheists believe in something like all religions do, every separation is artificial.


Believing in science does not equate to it being a religion.



> What I original wanted to say is that atheists have a wrong believe like most religions do.


Many of the gods that man has invented negate and contradict each others existence, so at least most are logically impossible to exist, so it can't be a wrong belief to be atheistic about them.


----------



## chatikh

The Sorrow said:


> In logic A is just a statement like not A. Saying there is no God is just a believe like saying there is a God.
> Also doing nothing is also doing something.


Atheism is evidence based, like science, not faith based.

Religions rely on the fact that you can't disprove things, and faith that they are there anyway, which isn't science. Science will never say something exists based on the fact you can't prove it doesn't exist.

So religion = faith in supernatural deities; faith that holy writings are accurate; rely on inability to disprove

Atheism = waiting for evidence; living life as if there are no deities until we get some.


----------



## chatikh

And you can disprove a religion's version of a deity by disproving the claims of that religion. For instance, creationism is something that has been proven wrong with evidence. So any religion that says we were created 6,000 years ago can be disproved based on that.


----------



## The Sorrow

chatikh said:


> Atheism is evidence based, like science, not faith based.
> 
> Religions rely on the fact that you can't disprove things, and faith that they are there anyway, which isn't science. Science will never say something exists based on the fact you can't prove it doesn't exist.
> 
> So religion = faith in supernatural deities; faith that holy writings are accurate; rely on inability to disprove
> 
> Atheism = waiting for evidence; living life as if there are no deities until we get some.


Atheism is not evidence based, its just like I cannot see it so I do believe that it does not exists. There are tons of evidence but atheist just use every excuse to reject it. Talking to an atheist is like talking to someone who does believe the moon landing was fake.


----------



## The Sorrow

chatikh said:


> And you can disprove a religion's version of a deity by disproving the claims of that religion.


Yes it is true that a religion can be disproved by disproving its teaching, that's makes if falsifiable



chatikh said:


> For instance, creationism is something that has been proven wrong with evidence. So any religion that says we were created 6,000 years ago can be disproved based on that.


This interpretation of the bible is wrong, the story in Genesis is a allegoric song and wants to teach us that God is the origin of the Universe.(Easy to proved by Sacred Tradition)


----------



## ugh1979

The Sorrow said:


> Atheism is not evidence based,


Well it is if you consider it to be evidence based in that it's due to an absence of evidence for gods.



> its just like I cannot see it so I do believe that it does not exists.


:?



> There are tons of evidence but atheist just use every excuse to reject it.


Care to share some of it?



> Talking to an atheist is like talking to someone who does believe the moon landing was fake.


To the contrary, it's moon landing deniers that are the ones who use anecdotal, mis-informed and incorrect 'evidence'. Just like theists beliefs.

Most athiests use credible science to provide evidence that the moon landing happened.


----------



## whattothink

ugh1979 said:


> Most athiests use credible science to provide evidence that the moon landing happened.


----------



## Dark Alchemist

The Sorrow said:


> Talking to a *theist *is like talking to someone who does believe the moon landing was fake.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## duckie

most Americans don't understand atheists views. many think atheists worship Satan so it doesn't surprise me they would be uncomfortable. our constitution protects freedom of religion so no president should ever have the power to ban church in this country.


----------



## TobeyJuarez

why would i care about the presidents religous beliefs... thats something that should be personal to everyone.... as long a person doesnt try to force thier views upon me i have no qualms with them


----------



## ugh1979

illmatic1 said:


> why would i care about the presidents religous beliefs... thats something that should be personal to everyone.... as long a person doesnt try to force thier views upon me i have no qualms with them


Would you vote for a president who genuinely thought they were Jesus as long as they didn't force their views on you?


----------



## TobeyJuarez

ugh1979 said:


> Would you vote for a president who genuinely thought they were Jesus as long as they didn't force their views on you?


i was talking more along the lines of, are the christian, muslim, hindu, jewish, or buddist.... but believing you are jesus would put u in the crazy category


----------



## targetbuddy

ugh1979 said:


> Would you vote for a president who genuinely thought they were Jesus as long as they didn't force their views on you?


I don't know who you've been talking to, but I've never met anybody who claimed that their religion is "I am Jesus Christ".


----------



## ugh1979

illmatic1 said:


> i was talking more along the lines of, are the christian, muslim, hindu, jewish, or buddist.... but believing you are jesus would put u in the crazy category


Well many would argue that they are all shades of the same craziness.


----------



## ugh1979

targetbuddy said:


> I don't know who you've been talking to, but I've never met anybody who claimed that their religion is "I am Jesus Christ".


Well I was being facetious, but there are several Christian 'cult' leaders who claim they are Jesus, or the brother of Jesus, or decended from Jesus etc.

Their religion is obviously some crude form of Christian.


----------



## NoMoreRunnin

I don't think we'll see a non-religious president for a long time...
I'm hoping in my lifetime, but people change so slowly.


----------



## rawrguy

Getting a atheist president would nearly impossible in the society that America is today or perhaps ever will be. It would be a ****ing miracle!


----------

