Majority Of Americans Would Vote For An Atheist For President (POLL)

[Atreus21]

What does humility have to do with...anything?

...it's a virtue? It's a good thing for a good man to have?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

While the trend over time is encouraging, it remains the case that an atheist candidate is automatically disqualified by 43% of the voters, making it impossible for any such candidate to win. Atheists are disqualified by more voters than Muslims, and Islam is probably the least popular religion in this country right now.

Here's the poll described in the Huffpo article:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

You have to wonder what is going on with the electorate when both gays/lesbians and Muslims - 2 groups who face considerable prejudice in our society - fare better than atheists.

Look at that last table. That leads me to think that we're not actually changing people's minds about voting for various minorities, we're just raising kids that are more tolerant and open-minded. I don't know whether to be happy or sad.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

...it's a virtue? It's a good thing for a good man to have?

Why? How does humility make someone a better President of the United States? Because that's what you mean presumably when you say "humility goes a long way to securing my vote. Arrogance goes equally long in the opposite direction." You are saying that humility would make someone a better President, and arrogance would make someone a worse President.

So, why?

 

[Atreus21]

I assume you don't vote then. Or at least you should consider whether participating in politics is really for you.

Politicians are inherently people who have decided they can take responsibility for making decisions for hundreds or millions of people. Arrogance is a pre-req for the job.

Well, I'm sure you'll disagree, but my impression is there's far more arrogance from the left than from the right. And atheists tend to be in the left.

Regardless, politicians are necessary, and if they are necessarily arrogant, than my job as a voter is to determine who manages to be the least arrogant.

 

[Atreus21]

Why? How does humility make someone a better President of the United States? Because that's what you mean presumably when you say "humility goes a long way to securing my vote. Arrogance goes equally long in the opposite direction." You are saying that humility would make someone a better President, and arrogance would make someone a worse President.

So, why?

For the same reason that humility makes a better person than arrogance does. Humility is a virtue, and arrogance a vice. I want virtuous people to be elected, and not vicious people.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, I'm sure you'll disagree, but my impression is there's far more arrogance from the left than from the right. And atheists tend to be in the left.

Regardless, politicians are necessary, and if they are necessarily arrogant, than my job as a voter is to determine who manages to be the least arrogant.

I can't disagree with your impression as it informs your decisions. It's for you. Enjoy it if it works for you. I just hope you're open enough to consider individuals over parties and "sides", but you can vote as you please. I do not share your opinion, but who cares.

I think all of them require a substantial ego for the reason I stated. Searching for humility in politicians seems rather quixotic. I'd imagine you're just making yourself more vulnerable to a better actor.

 

[Juddog]

Well, I'm sure you'll disagree, but my impression is there's far more arrogance from the left than from the right. And atheists tend to be in the left.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*wipes tears*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
That was pretty funny man, I'll give you that. You really made me crack up laughing there.

 

[woolfe9999]

Look at that last table. That leads me to think that we're not actually changing people's minds about voting for various minorities, we're just raising kids that are more tolerant and open-minded. I don't know whether to be happy or sad.

Yeah, plenty of interesting data on the page, and it does suggest that tolerance across the board will continue to improve over time. On the age chart, I think it's interesting that Muslims fare even worse than atheists in the 65 and older crowd. Anti-Muslim sentiment is incredibly high in that demographic. Just over a third would vote for a Muslim.

The D/I/R chart is also somewhat interesting. The attitudes there between D & R are pretty much as expected, but I's are less tolerant than *either* D's or R's in the case of Catholics, Hispanics and Jews. Not sure what exactly is going on there.

 

[jackstar7]

For the same reason that humility makes a better person than arrogance does. Humility is a virtue, and arrogance a vice. I want virtuous people to be elected, and not vicious people.

What makes humility a virtue for this job, is what I believe his question to be.

Some virtues are contextually relevant and not universal.

 

[BoberFett]

I voted yes, I don't really care what someone does or does not believe personally as long as their views on government match mine. I would not vote for a religious atheist. One who would preach atheism constantly from the Oval Office. Stressing the use of logic rather than faith to deal with our problems is good. Waging a war on religion is not.

 

[Atreus21]

I think all of them require a substantial ego for the reason I stated. Searching for humility in politicians seems rather quixotic. I'd imagine you're just making yourself more vulnerable to a better actor.

Shrug. If we shouldn't look for humility, then why should we look for honesty? We should hold politicians to the same standards of behavior that we hold ourselves at the very minimum. If these people are supposed to be the cream of the crop, one would think they ought to be paragons of righteousness and virtue. It seems we have the opposite now. Doesn't matter though. Just because politicians have to be dirtbags doesn't mean we should give up holding them to any standards at all.

 

[Atreus21]

What makes humility a virtue for this job, is what I believe his question to be.

Some virtues are contextually relevant and not universal.

Then your last statement is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Virtues are virtuous regardless of context. In any capacity, they should be sought. If virtues are not universal, then I don't see how they can be called virtues.

 

[Juddog]

Then your last statement is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Virtues are virtuous regardless of context. In any capacity, they should be sought. If virtues are not universal, then I don't see how they can be called virtues.

So the virtues of Muslims when it comes to blowing up innocent people are still virtuous?

Remember that there is more than one religion.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

For the same reason that humility makes a better person than arrogance does. Humility is a virtue, and arrogance a vice. I want virtuous people to be elected, and not vicious people.

You didn't really answer my question.

How does humility make someone a better President of the United States?

 

[Atreus21]

You didn't really answer my question.

How does humility make someone a better President of the United States?

By the same measure that it makes a better human being. If having humility makes me a better person, having humility would make me a better president.

 

[Atreus21]

So the virtues of Muslims when it comes to blowing up innocent people are still virtuous?

Remember that there is more than one religion.

What virtue are they practicing? Where anywhere is murdering innocents considered a virtue?

 

[jackstar7]

Shrug. If we shouldn't look for humility, then why should we look for honesty? We should hold politicians to the same standards of behavior that we hold ourselves at the very minimum. If these people are supposed to be the cream of the crop, one would think they ought to be paragons of righteousness and virtue. It seems we have the opposite now. Doesn't matter though. Just because politicians have to be dirtbags doesn't mean we should give up holding them to any standards at all.

You're saying dirtbags. I'm saying they must be arrogant, which I do not see as a "vice", but rather a level of confidence required for the job.

Then your last statement is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Virtues are virtuous regardless of context. In any capacity, they should be sought. If virtues are not universal, then I don't see how they can be called virtues.

I think you need to elaborate on which virtues to which you subscribe. And possibly how you rank them.

I prefer to have the smartest and most capable person for the job. Their attitude is not significant because I want substance over style. I'm sure you do, too, but the way you are explaining your position... I think you are terribly vulnerable to pretenders to the virtues you value as opposed to those that can be better tested quantifiably.

 

[jackstar7]

By the same measure that it makes a better human being. If having humility makes me a better person, having humility would make me a better president.

It is not axiomatic as you seem to think it is.

 

[Juddog]

What virtue are they practicing? Where anywhere is murdering innocents considered a virtue?

To them it may be considered a virtue, thus they are going to heaven afterwards.

Your statement specifically was that virtues are virtuous. My statement is that it may seem that way to one person but the actions based upon it are not to another. In this context, if a suicide muslim bomber considers their actions to be just and full of virtue, according to your logic that is virtuous. What I'm saying is that just because you see something as having virtue doesn't mean it's virtuous to everybody else.

 

[Atreus21]

To them it may be considered a virtue, thus they are going to heaven afterwards.

Your statement specifically was that virtues are virtuous. My statement is that it may seem that way to one person but the actions based upon it are not to another. In this context, if a suicide muslim bomber considers their actions to be just and full of virtue, according to your logic that is virtuous. What I'm saying is that just because you see something as having virtue doesn't mean it's virtuous to everybody else.

I said virtues are universal. I didn't say we couldn't misuse them to justify evil acts. Are you going to claim that they weren't evil acts because the terrorists didn't think they were evil?

If practicing a virtue brings you into severe contravention of other virtues, (in this case the muslim virtue you mention necessarily violating virtues like charity and temperance, and indeed indulging in vices like rage and revenge), then you're not being virtuous.

 

[Atreus21]

You're saying dirtbags. I'm saying they must be arrogant, which I do not see as a "vice", but rather a level of confidence required for the job.

I think you need to elaborate on which virtues to which you subscribe. And possibly how you rank them.

I think you need to tell me why it's okay to accept behavior from politicians that we wouldn't accept from ourselves. They are men like us. They shouldn't be held to any lower standard.

I prefer to have the smartest and most capable person for the job. Their attitude is not significant because I want substance over style. I'm sure you do, too, but the way you are explaining your position... I think you are terribly vulnerable to pretenders to the virtues you value as opposed to those that can be better tested quantifiably.

On the contrary, it sounds like you prefer style over substance. Or at least results over substance. How can you have good results without good substance. It's like excising the organ and demanding the function. Would you vote for a chronic liar who you thought could do the job? How on earth could you trust him? Would you vote for a serial womanizer? For a man who'd fathered 20 children by 10 women and left single moms and fatherless children in his wake? How can you realistically expect good results from people who are so vulnerable to outside influence?

 

[Juddog]

I said virtues are universal. I didn't say we couldn't misuse them to justify evil acts.

If practicing a virtue brings you into severe contravention of other virtues, (in this case the muslim virtue you mention necessarily violating virtues like charity and temperance, and indeed indulging in vices like rage and revenge), then you're not being virtuous.

Virtues are not universal, that's my whole point. To one person, blowing themselves up in a crowd of innocent people is considered virtuous, to another person that's a violent act of murdering innocents. The only reason you think they are universal is because that's all you know, and as long as you limit yourself to only sticking with what you know, you can never understand the other side of an argument or debate.

 

[Atreus21]

Virtues are not universal, that's my whole point. To one person, blowing themselves up in a crowd of innocent people is considered virtuous, to another person that's a violent act of murdering innocents. The only reason you think they are universal is because that's all you know, and as long as you limit yourself to only sticking with what you know, you can never understand the other side of an argument or debate.

You think murdering innocent people is virtuous?

 

[gevorg]

 

[jackstar7]

I think you need to tell me why it's okay to accept behavior from politicians that we wouldn't accept from ourselves. They are men like us. They shouldn't be held to any lower standard.

On the contrary, it sounds like you prefer style over substance. Or at least results over substance. How can you have good results without good substance. It's like excising the organ and demanding the function. Would you vote for a chronic liar who you thought could do the job? How on earth could you trust him? Would you vote for a serial womanizer? For a man who'd fathered 20 children by 10 women? How can you realistically expect good results from people who are so vulnerable to outside influence?

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say. So give me a minute here.

First, the job required of politicians is not like many other jobs, so the nature of the people I want doing that job are not the same as most other people I deal with on a day-to-day basis. The context matters. In a politician I want an advocate for my values who will be able to state them with clear voice and support them with logic and reason founded in reality. How will humility serve them in that role? Some humility is certainly hoped for, as I want someone cooperative, but I also need someone with the arrogance to want to persuade people to change their minds about issues. There is a role for both traits in the job. Too much of one or the other leads to a poor person for the job.

I stated that I want people who are smart and capable. Those are things that can be tested and measured in some regards. From that you extrapolated that I want the worst of all other traits. I don't ascribe such horseshit to you, so why do you put it on me?

I think I've articulated why between the two of us you are more vulnerable to a style over substance politician to win you over. How do you propose to measure humility?

And you still have failed to explain which virtues you value and in what order (if any).