An atheist President would be okay
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is only for acceptance.
The definition of atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. This doesn't mean that as an atheist you have to be anti-religion. I'm an example; I don't believe religion should be banned because I think more good has come out of it than evil. I'm going to list arguments that my opponent may use.
Atheists have no fear of a place of torture and eternal burning, so either they have no sense of morality or it comes from nowhere. Well, if you think either that or that your god is the source of morality, and Christianity is the right religion, you come acrosse Euthyphro's dilemma. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Basically, "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" When you believe that God commands X and forbids Y, especially with the promise of eternal punishment, so you follow what he commands, because it is moral (again, Euthyphro's dilemma). That's not moral behavior. That's save-your-behind-from-eternal-torture behavior. My proof that atheists have a sense of morality is that we're not child abusing, stealing, wife beating, mass-murdering prostitutes. If you argue for Stalin and Mao, "Look! They were atheists! Look what atheists do!" They killed in the name of politics, not just for the heck of it.
2. Bad Example For Youth
I'm sure that's what people thought about MLK Jr. Just because an atheist has "no sense of morality" doesn't mean they're incapable of doing good.
3. There Have Been No Bad Christian Presidents
If you're a Republican, you may argue that Obama is an atheist. He's a Christian. I won't go more in-depth with Obama unless I have to, so that is up to con. Bill Clinton was impeached because he had an affair, you could say he was a bad President. Herbert Hoover was President during the Great Depression, and his attempts, if any, to fix it failed and left for FDR to fix. You could say he was a bad President. Also, all Presidents have been Christian in some way. You can't say all Presidents were good.
Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate, and I wish you good luck!
JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.
I extend my arguments, I hope con will be back.
Oh yes, I apologize for forfeiting. No internet at where I was staying over the weekend!
Christians, if they believe what the Bible says, know that God is their Creator who is 1) omniscient, 2) all loving, 3) infinite. If God knows the future, he wants the best for us, and he will live/be forever, we should trust what He says in his Holy Book, the Bible. Inside this book there are moralities that make sense and some that do not make any sense from the perspective of our modern culture. But no matter what WE think, we follow the things God says in the Bible BECAUSE he is all-knowing and all-loving. In other words, is it better to trust ourselves or our Creator? This is the biggest reason an atheist president would make our country go down (in some ways--I'm not saying that the president would flunk all in all, but his moralities wouldn't be the smartest because he would lead the country his own way, not our Creator's way).
Having an atheist president goes against America's Pledge of Allegiance, which says 'One nation, under God...' It would bring up a lot of conflicts and controversy between the people in America, offending all the different religious folk who believe their country should be 'under God' yet their very president doesn't agree.
2. Bad Example For Youth
If I understand correctly, what you're saying is I should/can argue whether or not atheists would be a bad example for youth.
Again, I'd need a definition or clarification of WHICH atheist as a president, because one who did not agree, promote, or tolerate any religions with a god/God would be a bad thing for the new generations. If kids were taught that all religions were wrong than kids would be forced to believe one thing: this world came about by the Big Bang/Evolution and all gods are myths. It would sort of become socialism, like China or North Korea where Christians aren't allowed and any theists are persecuted.
3. Obama being atheist
Christianity is...https://www.google.com... so please don't say that the American President is Christian. That's the problem: we don't know WHAT he is. Many say he's Muslim, and Muslims hate Christians so which one is it? I definitely wouldn't go as far as to say ALL Presidents have been Christians in some way, but you could say they were all theists.
Theism is not specifically Christianity, but Christianity is a form of theism.
Ah, I apologize for not being specific. I am arguing for someone like an agnostic atheist or someone like Hemant Mehta, who has a blog here: http://www.patheos.com...; I agree, it is certainly a waste of time to argue whether a militant atheist (or a militant anything for that matter) would be a good President. And no, I welcome new arguments on anything I am debating.
I am not going to argue how nothing is infinite, and that it's pretty much impossible to be omniscient, and how Bible verses contradict the claim of an all loving god, because that's a waste of time. Instead, I will address everything else.
1A. The Bible
This is by far not the world's view of the Christian holy book because, obviously, 1/3 of the world is Christian. I live under the assumption that the Bible was written by man and not inspired by a higher deity. There is morality we agree with in the Bible because it was written by man. If you need a god to tell you not to kill people, there's something wrong. Because of the time the Bible was written 2,000 years ago, of course there's going to be stuff we don't agree with.
My opponent asserts that we follow the things in the Bible because he is omniscient and all loving. Well, I'm asking a couple questions: What about the other 2/3 of the world that doesn't follow Christianity? Are they lost? Then my opponent asks a question: "Is it better to trust ourselves or our Creator?" There is something so wrong with that (in my opinion). So basically, you're pulling Pascal's Wager. You'd trust someone you don't even know exists more than yourself. Mind you, the person that you are is the person that you can trust more than anyone else. Also, how would our "creator" want our country to be run? Why does he care? And why the heck do we not have the right to govern ourselves without our so called "creator" stepping in and telling us this is wrong? I thought we had freewill.
1C. The Pledge
"Having an atheist President goes against America's Pledge of Allegiance, which says 'One nation, under God...'" So suddenly the Pledge is law? Also, that very line in the Pledge is against the first amendment of the actual base of our government prohibits the mixture of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Though it is not stated directly, the idea of seperation of church and state is inside the first amendment. If you don't understand, Google it. The Pledge of Allegiance and the motto on our coins directly violate the first amendment. Here are some more things that are wrong with the Pledge:
Feel free to criticize or address the points in the website.
2. Obama being atheist
Obama is not an atheist. According to:
Since this turned out to be shorter than I'd intended, my opponent is welcome to post new arguments other than the ones I suggested, and with their permission (I don't want to bother you), I will either create a continued version of this debate and put the link in the comments, or put my last rebuttals and conclusion in the comments. If not, then you can post rebuttals and conclude your argument or just post your conclusion. Either way, it's your choice. If you choose to conclude, thanks for debating me. If not, thanks still. I enjoyed it.
1A. The Bible
My opponent: "I live under the assumption that the Bible was written by man and not inspired by a higher deity." Off the top of my head, here's a verse claiming that the Bible is inspired by God, (since you have already assumed God is real when making this statement): 2nd Timothy 3:16: 'all scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching and reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man may be complete: equipped in every good work.'
"There is morality we agree with in the Bible because it was written by man. If you need a god to tell you not to kill people, there's something wrong." What would be 'wrong'? I sense that you don't understand the real meaning of 'Creator God.' (See 1B.)
If MANKIND was created by Him, AND God knows more than all of us ever will, why would we (selfishly and foolishly) trust ourselves to make decisions, choose the lifestyle, etc. and assume our ways are wiser than His?! The Christian God is the ONLY Creator of the world, he is not "a god" as you said, and I also believe He loves us all as His children SO WE CAN TRUST HIM.
"You'd trust someone you don't even know exists more than yourself." I know He exists because of the evidence all around us, and I can trust that He is wiser than me BECAUSE I believe that He is the Creator. To bring all this on topic, an atheist president would be quite selfish and foolish to rely on his own decisions while trying to lead a country. The Bible says what is morally right (and in my opinion most of it is already common sense no matter if God says it), so if the president was completely ignorant to God's ways, the morals of the president AND the direction of the country would be wrong according to our VERY OWN CREATOR. Yes, this is "Pascal's Wager," but it seems appropriate because I am a Christian and I believe God is real--this is the very reason I am debating this: to express my opinion on why an atheistic president who doesn't believe in God wouldn't be "okay."
You are taking a lot of things for granted. Just think of what it would be like if God made us like good-deed-doing robots: no choice in life (so we'd have to do the right thing), mankind wouldn't succeed and achieve any more than the way we started, and we wouldn't have many joys or excitements without freewill. That's why God gave it to us. But because of this, He must have known there would be some consequences, because there's also the great possibility of us doing the immoral and choosing to do the wrong thing--sometimes being VERY wrong in their choices (i.e. murder is something that wouldn't happen without freewill). So God set some guidelines and gave some limits, which are logical to follow. I have explained why it's better to follow your Creator's ways than our own so I won't go any more into this.
1C. The Pledge
If the P.O.A. isn't a law it IS for sure a commitment, or an agreement, you can't argue that. Why haven't we changed the words to the Pledge? Because under half America's population AGREES with it. And taking away the fact that there 'possibly could be' a God from America's government would offend, as you said, 1/3 of America's citizens, and would put the country in some danger: morally because it would not have the guidelines God set before us (assuming He is real), and socially because it would break us apart, it would segregate the religious with secular. (Rebuttal for your website)
Personally, I disagree that the Pledge of Allegiance being offensive TO ATHEISTS. The two words "Under God" can't go as far as hurting atheistic veterans; those two parts of the pledge are basically saying that 'trusting that there might be God, our country is under Him.' Atheists should not take this personally as they cannot prove if there is or is not a Creator, and it would be wise to go with the Higher Being (this is what I've been saying all along) than trying to lead a country yourself.
2. Obama being atheist
I agree that Obama is not atheist. But there are MANY references of Obama mentioning the Qur'an and about being/agreeing with the Muslims. It is interesting you put out that interview with "Sen. Barack Obama" website and I enjoyed reading it, thank-you. But I don't think he knows what it is to be a Christian--or else he was lying, if he really did say straight out "I am Christian." Here's why:
He thinks of Christianity as something YOU get things from, but according to the religion you are supposed to acknowledge and praise God for your every possession and spirituality (because you believe He is the Creator therefore you should respect and trust Him).
Barack Obama said he had drawn the most out of Judaism, and you can tell he respects any religion that leads to a God.
But this is what he said according to the article: "So, I"m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there"s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived." It sounded like he thinks that the belief in a Higher Intelligence brings us, humanity, together. But this is not Christianity. This is pantheism, or more so 'theism.' Does he believe in Jesus Christ? I doubt it. Does he agree with the things in the Bible? Later on he even said: "these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good." His 'religion' was him trying to figure out morality and people peace, it didn't sound like he relied on praying or waited on the Christian God for peace.
Watch the video this site gives: http://www.glennbeck.com...
He went to a Catholic School in Indonesia and studied the Bible...!? He worked as a peacemaker and job-finder for the community in Chicago, after that, and decided to do that as part of a church. This is quite a wishy-washy religion he's trying to make out of.
Obama talked a lot about his back-round and childhood, saying his mother was just "Christian" and "no particular kind." His grandparents were supposedly Methodist, Baptist, and then--Universalist, well that's sort of vague! My question is, did his grandparents believe in God or not? They sound like very hopeful agnostics, his grandparents.
After a while it says he said he devoted his life to Christ. But he said he thinks religion tears people apart. He said he talks to his inner voice to figure out what is morally right and says he continually prays and "reads the Bible." But then again, he advocates abortion now (the Bible is against any killing), and, not that this is a debate about Obama but about atheist presidents, but I will end with this: Obama doesn't believe in what the Bible says about Jesus' salvation. And that is the main thing about Christianity, that he opposed in the interview shown on this website you gave. I do not agree that he is a Christian or an atheist http://cathleenfalsani.com... But that's another topic!
The only thing I'll add to this debate is another perspective on why an atheist president would be bad.
Life is temporary. But someone who is choosing to ignore that there is more to life than power, money, and leadership (the first and the latter being pretty much the same) will probably not have a good composure while trying to make decisions and leading a country. Why? Because he will get caught up in those three things I mentioned: power (the atheist president might be conceited) because he doesn't believe there is a Higher Being than himself; money (he might be greedy) because he doesn't believe there is more to life than being successful and moving; leadership might be misunderstood as he is overlooking/doubts the fact that there might be a God who could help the country.
I choose to conclude this debate because my point has been proven and I feel we have both debated well. I thank my opponent for a nice debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Ff. Extreme socialism does not prohibit being religious. It only prohibits manipulating large groups by religion. Con also argued that country would go down if president had thrust in himself and missed thrust into some being that there is no good evidence that even exists; Which is the main cause of my decision.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.