First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Why I would vote for an atheist/scientist for president over a religious one.
33369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 3/10/15 , edited 3/10/15
I believe scientist chose science as their career choice because they wanted to be scientist, not politicians.
32429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / California
Offline
Posted 3/10/15 , edited 3/10/15

Punk_Mela wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Why an Atheist.scientist for president!


A religious president makes decisions based on Faith
, the ideal that Believing it to be true is good enough even wen there is no evidence for it, or the evidence shows the opposite to be true.

Now an Atheist scientist expects evidence before making any big decisions, and will revers decisions if evidence is found to counter ones ideals, or goals. (why would you not want a president that made sound decisions over discisions made based on personal opinions and faith?)




Example..: we believe that country A. is building weapons of mass destruction, because my gut tells me so. and so we start a war with them killing millions and invading a potentially innocent country. (plus wasted billions on having are troops over there, plus the cost of the bombs and weapons used. )

Wile the more rational atheist/scientist would seek out evidence before potentially alienating a country for something they may not be doing. (plus find ways to improve are country instead of running it into the dirt for their own agendas.)




No, pretty sure all presidents make decisions based off a council of advisors and intricate reports as well as donor influence.

The irony here is that you are making a claim with no supporting evidence.

Whether or not you believe there was a case for WMD's or if it was a false accusation to go to war for oil related purposes, I would bet my left nut (my most prized of the pair) we did not start any conflict in the middle east based off of a gut feeling.


About three seconds of looking at your post, I don't usually care about grammatical errors but this is a bit much when you are trying to be taken so seriously.

Side note: you didn't mention any source for where you got that "86 percent of scientists are atheists" stuff. I assume this is because "My ass" is hard to cite?


Well. I guess I'll throw down some gauntlets to liven things up:

I would like to address that the President does indeed receive advice from his "council of advisors [which we call his cabinet]." They specialize in multiple fields such as foreign affairs, domestic issues, and etc. The President would find great difficulty to manage the country by himself, which is why he relies on his Cabinet for advice, however; the final word is not given by the Cabinet, but the President. In the end, the Presidential Advisors may provide a course of action, but the President is THE ONE who approves or rejects the proposal.

For the issue of "faith," I would like to point out the meaning of faith and then fall onto the issue of how it relates to decision making.The definition: faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" -- Merriam-Webster (1). With full understanding of what "faith" entails, we should understand that the President does NOT make decisions based on faith alone, but we can't say that faith isn't a determining factor in the process -- I'm not going to go into the proof that religion is based on faith, since that's something you should know intuitively. If we were to compare a President with faith to a president with faith, we can definitely for sure say that faith will skew the final outcome; religion (unfortunately enough) is biased.

As for the problem of the Middle-East and Oil, I'm not going to touch up on that since we'll probably have to touch up on the history of religion and the age-old conflict between Christian and Islam, which is quite tedious, and long, and a pain to quote, and you should probably have learned this in middle school (assuming that you had an education).

End of the day, Faith and Religion DO influence politics to a degree. To how much of a degree? It depends on the person in question.

The last part involving your "Side note," I'll cover that up for you: "the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study" (2). This should keep your butt plug in -- Ha ha.

-Your Local Atheist.

P.S. I had typed this rather quickly; the grammar might be off, but it's probably better than yours anyways -- Ha ha (again).

Citation:
(1) - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
(2) - http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-scientists-atheists.htm
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15


I went to high-school I am well aware of "his cabinet" I specifically chose to avoid the term because he receives advice from a far larger group of people. To counter your rather weak point of "we should understand that the president does not make decisions based on faith alone, but we can't say faith is a determining factor" I'll toss back one of atheism's dearest catch phrases "we don't need to prove that it doesn't, you need to prove that it does" All of my time spent in the military, all of my time spent in the professional world, and all this week attending college midterms, I have yet to make a working environment decision based off of any religious faith. Commanding officers, work place superiors, and teachers told me the situation explained how it worked and told me to react. My reaction was based off the presentation they gave, zero faith involved. I get the overwhelming feeling those who present issues to the president are fairly thorough in their research. Despite what everyone likes to say anyone who makes it into the oval office is probably a very intelligent individual, again I assure you they haven't succeeded on gut feelings. They are quite competent at sizing up a situation.

This is completely irrelevant to what my point was. So I will reiterate it for you: Whatever reason the government decided to start a conflict in the middle east, it was not based off of a "gut feeling" or the president's "faith". Perhaps if you would stick to the purpose of this debate instead of digressing into shallow personal attacks you would have caught on.

This is about the same as saying "the sky is blue". Passing off such a broad (and again irrelevant to my point made against OP) statement as some sort of answer is silly.

Thanks for the citation but it is still not the one OP listed and I maintain he pulled 86% out of his ass. It is interesting nonetheless, it is a shame your shallow insults hinder what could be a good standing in your debate. I really don't know why you are so concerned with my butt plug staying in.

Letting the overly used and entirely unoriginal "local signature" go... You only build a standing for my side with petty insults. While a sad little dispute on some anime forums at 3 am is probably not the best place to gauge grammar at, I can say you lack any elements of solid persuasive writing taught in composition one at any given college. Based on that observation I would say you probably have not attended or at least did not engage in any writing course and in any formal writing I am sure your grammar would be about the same level as the actual content.

Again I just have to say this as a personal thing too, if you are going to come here to "throw down some gauntlets" bring actual points of discussion. Your reply was just a lot of sour insults with no actual effort in pulling me to your side and if you're not here to persuade anybody there is a voice memo app in most any smart phone, record whatever you want to say and play back your voice as many times as you want to hear it I That way you don't have to bother the rest of the world with the silly stuff that slides down the inside of your skull and out of your mouth and still get that satisfaction of hearing yourself. I can tell how much you enjoy it.
27490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Online
Posted 3/11/15
Like it even matters.
48899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
I would vote for Cthulhu but like everyone I'm sure It (f Cthulhu has a gender I doubt we'd understand it, and if you did you would go crazy) would fail to live up to campaign promises like every candidate.
32429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / California
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15

Punk_Mela wrote:



I went to high-school I am well aware of "his cabinet" I specifically chose to avoid the term because he receives advice from a far larger group of people. To counter your rather weak point of "we should understand that the president does not make decisions based on faith alone, but we can't say faith is a determining factor" I'll toss back one of atheism's dearest catch phrases "we don't need to prove that it doesn't, you need to prove that it does" All of my time spent in the military, all of my time spent in the professional world, and all this week attending college midterms, I have yet to make a working environment decision based off of any religious faith. Commanding officers, work place superiors, and teachers told me the situation explained how it worked and told me to react. My reaction was based off the presentation they gave, zero faith involved. I get the overwhelming feeling those who present issues to the president are fairly thorough in their research. Despite what everyone likes to say anyone who makes it into the oval office is probably a very intelligent individual, again I assure you they haven't succeeded on gut feelings. They are quite competent at sizing up a situation.

This is completely irrelevant to what my point was. So I will reiterate it for you: Whatever reason the government decided to start a conflict in the middle east, it was not based off of a "gut feeling" or the president's "faith". Perhaps if you would stick to the purpose of this debate instead of digressing into shallow personal attacks you would have caught on.

This is about the same as saying "the sky is blue". Passing off such a broad (and again irrelevant to my point made against OP) statement as some sort of answer is silly.

Thanks for the citation but it is still not the one OP listed and I maintain he pulled 86% out of his ass. It is interesting nonetheless, it is a shame your shallow insults hinder what could be a good standing in your debate. I really don't know why you are so concerned with my butt plug staying in.

Letting the overly used and entirely unoriginal "local signature" go... You only build a standing for my side with petty insults. While a sad little dispute on some anime forums at 3 am is probably not the best place to gauge grammar at, I can say you lack any elements of solid persuasive writing taught in composition one at any given college. Based on that observation I would say you probably have not attended or at least did not engage in any writing course and in any formal writing I am sure your grammar would be about the same level as the actual content.

Again I just have to say this as a personal thing too, if you are going to come here to "throw down some gauntlets" bring actual points of discussion. Your reply was just a lot of sour insults with no actual effort in pulling me to your side and if you're not here to persuade anybody there is a voice memo app in most any smart phone, record whatever you want to say and play back your voice as many times as you want to hear it I That way you don't have to bother the rest of the world with the silly stuff that slides down the inside of your skull and out of your mouth and still get that satisfaction of hearing yourself. I can tell how much you enjoy it.


Finally! We're getting somewhere interesting.

Let me counter the non-mundane and new points you've pitted against me:

You specifically regarded my case as a "rather weak point of 'we should understand that the president does not make decisions based on faith alone, but we can't say faith is a determining factor.'" This is something on the side, but I would prefer for you to quote my words properly. You have changed my "we can't say that faith isn't a determining factor" to "we can't say faith is a determining factor." The reason why I had bothered to point this out is that if you're planning to counter my argument, I would advise you to properly quote my words, not fabricate them. Thank you.

For the first point you quoted "'we don't need to prove that it doesn't, you need to prove that it does,'" (which I'm just assuming to be a reference to Evidence of Absence) and went on to explain your personal history. As interesting as it is that you went on to include such a thing about your past, you yourself alone is not evidence sufficient enough to debunk my my earlier statement (that faith skews judgement). Let me explain to you: Faith isn't something that can be measured like temperature. It is a belief; it is a mental concoction. Just because you don't think about it doesn't mean that it isn't there. For example, stress (another mental concoction): I had spilled coffee on my pants earlier today. I'm now irritated. I then go carry on my day and don't think about it. Does this mean that the stress isn't there if I don't think about it? No. Of course not. The stress still lingers long after and carries on to affect your day without you being conscious of it. In accordance, we can also say that faith affects our minds the same way.

As for when you stated "anyone who makes it into the oval office is probably a very intelligent individual," I would like to refute that. The oval office is the head of state, but just because someone makes it as the head of state does not necessarily mean that they arrived there due to being an "intelligent individual." For example, lets look at history for a bit: Benito Mussolini happened to come into power (and happened is the key word). Mussolini had marched on Rome and managed to succeed as the King had handed over power. The key information pertaining to this is that Mussolini wasn't expected to rise into power; it was pure coincidence. This is quote from Wikipedia, since I don't have my AP Gov. textbook with me: "The King's controversial decision has been explained by historians as a combination of delusions and fears" -- this is a loose quote. This ties up with the main idea that the hardline qualification to be head of state is not to be "a very intelligent individual." Before you stab at me for saying such a thing, I would also like to state that we do have intelligent Presidents, but not all can be considered the cream of the crop (ref. Mitt Romney a former Pres. Candidate).

Onto the next point, you state that "'gut feeling'" is not a logical impulse for action (which is correct), but "faith," or rather, religion, is. I had previously mentioned the conflicted history between Christianity and Islam, so I won't go into that anymore. If you still want more information on it, I would recommend that you read up on the Crusades.

It's funny, really, the information regarding the citation on belief amongst scientists, I'm not sure why you couldn't do the math for "5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent," but it actually works out to be higher. If it's not supporting evidence, then I'm not sure what is; it definitely supports his "86%."

To wrap up your silly remarks, I would like to ask you: What makes you think I want to persuade you? Rather, I'm here to bash you. I would rather you not go spreading around your hypocrisy. You are the silly one. Only you would talk crap about the original poster's grammar when they're voicing a perfectly legible and comprehensible opinion, and requesting a proper answer. You are the one who's unprofessional. The proper thing to do is to answer him without smearing dirt on his face. If you are to hold someone by a standard, then please be prepared to be judged by that standard. I really hope that you will take the time to understand the word "shame." Truly. You disgust me.
8345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
Your presuming that a religious president would make desicions solely on their faith...
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15

cleruninja wrote:

Don't think it makes a difference. The decisions are made based on which corporations gave the biggest campaign contributions. Politicians do not succeed by holding strong to a set of ideals, whether they be religious or secular.


A man who knows what he's talking about! Notice how politicians are always working for these big corps when their terms are over. I also find it funny how some people who are atheist believes it makes them inherently smarter,simply isn't true.
16931 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
An atheist president ?
Personally i think president should not be basing their decision off their faith, but knowing Americans voters from all the bloody politics and civil courses that i learned. It is like doing political campaign on Hard mode. I mean JFK have to make a claim that him being a Catholic won't effect his decision because of all the protestant voters. That and what the poster above mentioned. It is going to be based on which corporation gave the biggest campaign contributions.

With voters turnout as low as US's one, the campaign contributions matters a lot.
42415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
Religious or not, I'm not voting for your ass.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/11/15

Destino132 wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:



I went to high-school I am well aware of "his cabinet" I specifically chose to avoid the term because he receives advice from a far larger group of people. To counter your rather weak point of "we should understand that the president does not make decisions based on faith alone, but we can't say faith is a determining factor" I'll toss back one of atheism's dearest catch phrases "we don't need to prove that it doesn't, you need to prove that it does" All of my time spent in the military, all of my time spent in the professional world, and all this week attending college midterms, I have yet to make a working environment decision based off of any religious faith. Commanding officers, work place superiors, and teachers told me the situation explained how it worked and told me to react. My reaction was based off the presentation they gave, zero faith involved. I get the overwhelming feeling those who present issues to the president are fairly thorough in their research. Despite what everyone likes to say anyone who makes it into the oval office is probably a very intelligent individual, again I assure you they haven't succeeded on gut feelings. They are quite competent at sizing up a situation.

This is completely irrelevant to what my point was. So I will reiterate it for you: Whatever reason the government decided to start a conflict in the middle east, it was not based off of a "gut feeling" or the president's "faith". Perhaps if you would stick to the purpose of this debate instead of digressing into shallow personal attacks you would have caught on.

This is about the same as saying "the sky is blue". Passing off such a broad (and again irrelevant to my point made against OP) statement as some sort of answer is silly.

Thanks for the citation but it is still not the one OP listed and I maintain he pulled 86% out of his ass. It is interesting nonetheless, it is a shame your shallow insults hinder what could be a good standing in your debate. I really don't know why you are so concerned with my butt plug staying in.

Letting the overly used and entirely unoriginal "local signature" go... You only build a standing for my side with petty insults. While a sad little dispute on some anime forums at 3 am is probably not the best place to gauge grammar at, I can say you lack any elements of solid persuasive writing taught in composition one at any given college. Based on that observation I would say you probably have not attended or at least did not engage in any writing course and in any formal writing I am sure your grammar would be about the same level as the actual content.

Again I just have to say this as a personal thing too, if you are going to come here to "throw down some gauntlets" bring actual points of discussion. Your reply was just a lot of sour insults with no actual effort in pulling me to your side and if you're not here to persuade anybody there is a voice memo app in most any smart phone, record whatever you want to say and play back your voice as many times as you want to hear it I That way you don't have to bother the rest of the world with the silly stuff that slides down the inside of your skull and out of your mouth and still get that satisfaction of hearing yourself. I can tell how much you enjoy it.


Finally! We're getting somewhere interesting.

Let me counter the non-mundane and new points you've pitted against me:

You specifically regarded my case as a "rather weak point of 'we should understand that the president does not make decisions based on faith alone, but we can't say faith is a determining factor.'" This is something on the side, but I would prefer for you to quote my words properly. You have changed my "we can't say that faith isn't a determining factor" to "we can't say faith is a determining factor." The reason why I had bothered to point this out is that if you're planning to counter my argument, I would advise you to properly quote my words, not fabricate them. Thank you.

For the first point you quoted "'we don't need to prove that it doesn't, you need to prove that it does,'" (which I'm just assuming to be a reference to Evidence of Absence) and went on to explain your personal history. As interesting as it is that you went on to include such a thing about your past, you yourself alone is not evidence sufficient enough to debunk my my earlier statement (that faith skews judgement). Let me explain to you: Faith isn't something that can be measured like temperature. It is a belief; it is a mental concoction. Just because you don't think about it doesn't mean that it isn't there. For example, stress (another mental concoction): I had spilled coffee on my pants earlier today. I'm now irritated. I then go carry on my day and don't think about it. Does this mean that the stress isn't there if I don't think about it? No. Of course not. The stress still lingers long after and carries on to affect your day without you being conscious of it. In accordance, we can also say that faith affects our minds the same way.

As for when you stated "anyone who makes it into the oval office is probably a very intelligent individual," I would like to refute that. The oval office is the head of state, but just because someone makes it as the head of state does not necessarily mean that they arrived there due to being an "intelligent individual." For example, lets look at history for a bit: Benito Mussolini happened to come into power (and happened is the key word). Mussolini had marched on Rome and managed to succeed as the King had handed over power. The key information pertaining to this is that Mussolini wasn't expected to rise into power; it was pure coincidence. This is quote from Wikipedia, since I don't have my AP Gov. textbook with me: "The King's controversial decision has been explained by historians as a combination of delusions and fears" -- this is a loose quote. This ties up with the main idea that the hardline qualification to be head of state is not to be "a very intelligent individual." Before you stab at me for saying such a thing, I would also like to state that we do have intelligent Presidents, but not all can be considered the cream of the crop (ref. Mitt Romney a former Pres. Candidate).

Onto the next point, you state that "'gut feeling'" is not a logical impulse for action (which is correct), but "faith," or rather, religion, is. I had previously mentioned the conflicted history between Christianity and Islam, so I won't go into that anymore. If you still want more information on it, I would recommend that you read up on the Crusades.

It's funny, really, the information regarding the citation on belief amongst scientists, I'm not sure why you couldn't do the math for "5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent," but it actually works out to be higher. If it's not supporting evidence, then I'm not sure what is; it definitely supports his "86%."

To wrap up your silly remarks, I would like to ask you: What makes you think I want to persuade you? Rather, I'm here to bash you. I would rather you not go spreading around your hypocrisy. You are the silly one. Only you would talk crap about the original poster's grammar when they're voicing a perfectly legible and comprehensible opinion, and requesting a proper answer. You are the one who's unprofessional. The proper thing to do is to answer him without smearing dirt on his face. If you are to hold someone by a standard, then please be prepared to be judged by that standard. I really hope that you will take the time to understand the word "shame." Truly. You disgust me.



You're side stepping the point of everything I said before. I'll go over your reply and perhaps if you open your mind enough to see what is actually in the matter all the way up from your high horse, maybe one day the moment where you realize how silly you are. Also judging by your response I don't think you understood the point of color coding the text. The different colors of my text match quotes you said to help you keep up How embarrassing.

This wasn't anything intentional, I didn't copy and paste your post, I thought it was an absurd statement and rewrote it from memory. The change was simply a typo, the kind of thing that tends to happens at 3 am. With context to the rest of my paragraph, it really doesn't change the meaning you used it for and my argument still holds. In fact it a clear indicator of your poor reasoning skills that instead of trying to argue against my point you focused on a typo.


This is honestly pretty funny when I step back. It has just gotten to that point. Your poorly made "point" lacks any substance. Stress is a completely different ball field and is often quite measurable, this example doesn't work. You are also disregarding the purposes of why I mentioned my work history. You keep asserting that faith has some affect on our decision making skills whether we realize it or not but this is just not true. Even you at some point realize it is not true, thus the example of stress instead of an example involving faith in workplace. I don't know of a single time I have ever had to bring religion into the workplace to solve a problem for me and I am sure I won't ever need to.

This again is irrelevant to my point. I never said "you have to be intelligent to become head of the state" I said to come into the Oval Office you have to be pretty intelligent and I stand by that. Whether you like a president or hate one, they are not stupid people. Not even Romney (but go google search whatever reasons you can find to support this ridiculous statement, I'm sure you don't remember off hand seeing how you must have been in elementary school during that election if your writing is any reflection of your age.

I couldn't help but picture that meme about syndrome going "You dense motherf****r" when I read this. Maybe if you focused on reading a little more and responding a little less your replies wouldn't sound so stupid. I never disregarded this statistic and even found it interesting. I acknowledged it, my point though was that OP made a number up. Good for you that you went out and found supporting evidence. My whole point there was OP spouted BS statistics based off of his bias and considering (as you yourself have stated) it's higher than the original number he indicated, my point holds that he either made it up or used a different source he never cited. Honestly, you're like an evil henchman in a movie and the point is the hero.

Who is misquoting who now? I never for one fraction of a second said anything like this? Could it be that because I am not militantly attacking religion with the same bias you like to pull out and show off you assume that I am Christian and just extrapolate that assumption to mean I think "faith" is more than a gut feeling?

This phrase made me assume you were here to debate, there is no hypocrisy here. This is not the first conversation I have had with the joke that is OP and I did not initially begin by insulting him. I debated first and came to the conclusion that much like yourself, he is just stupid. I pointed out his grammar because it was just overwhelmingly bad. Trust me I have found grammatical mistakes in your writing and am positive I would find plenty in my own. OP just took it to another level. HIs "arguments" were about as well thought out as your own, but I can see why you defend him. Maybe you should have an offline meet up where you can discuss your similar perspectives until you get bored of that and entertain yourselves by making funny faces at each other and eating Play-Do. Smearing dirt on his face seams like a decent plan at this point, maybe it will help to get some of the egg off. You came into a conversation in defense of a fellow atheist lacking context and just sound stupid. I tried to debate and have a reasonable argument but you couldn't keep up I guess. That's fine, let's do it your way and start bashing. I can debate better and damn well can talk trash better. You're just way to short sighted for any of this.
24954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15

kimchino


Gotta have blue hair is my stance. Tsugumi best girl.
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
I don't even think religion and government go together... What president ever puts his belief of religion into his chooses?
1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
It really doesn't matter to me, personally. I don't care what the President's religion is, hence why I don't understand why people were making such a big deal about mere speculation that Obama might be a Muslim. As long as their administration is competent, it's not important.
64447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
Many atheist are religious zealous the same as Christian or Muslim religious zealots.

In a secular country, where the government is supposed to be OF, BY and FOR, the people, you should vote for the MOST TOLERANT person, who understands the diverse views of the people under his care and looks after the rights of ALL his people, regardless of whether or not he agrees.

In short, vote for the person who believes in freedom first, God, the big bang, or aliens second.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.