Feedback/Notes

 

Latest Activity

Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"The whole thing [religion] is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a…"
11 hours ago
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Ayumimori
""Happy Birthday!""
18 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"Considering that the death toll at Pearl Harbor as a result of the Japanese attack was over 2,400,…"
yesterday
Onyango M commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"was the attack on PH unexpected? Was it really a surprise? a provocation? or a response ?"
yesterday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. -- Rosa Luxemburg It always seems to start out that…"
yesterday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Amie Nicole
""Happy Birthday!"P.S:Personally I like the term dreamwalker myself."
yesterday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"Very true, Randall.  The Missiles of October were more of a diplomatic and cold-war…"
Thursday
Randall Smith commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"T What became known as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was another such surprise. The result…"
Thursday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"If you want your life to mean something, try making someone else's life meaningful. -- Aron Ra…"
Thursday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Christine
""Happy Birthday!""
Thursday
Mrs.B commented on Neil Weightman's group Atheist Cat Servants
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Katharine Hepburn. A grand lady"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"Interesting Loren. Thank you"
Wednesday
Loren Miller posted a blog post

What Happens Next Time?

Surprises generally only work ONCE, especially if they are UNPLEASANT surprises or worse, hostile,…See More
Wednesday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"How could any Lord have made this world?... there is no reason, order, justice: but suffering,…"
Wednesday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Hannah
""Happy Birthday!""
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTMQ: It's Not In There"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTM: Walking On Water"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part I"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part II"
Wednesday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

The Conservative Atheist

The recent polling numbers on atheist voters show that around two-thirds are voting for Hillary. Maybe a little higher, or lower by now, but apparently the majority of us think that Hillary will do a better job. This, even though we know she promotes faith in her stories and life. Hillary believes that you need faith to overcome those grim life occurrences that happen in some way to all of us. 

Donald is probably not religious in many aspects. He doesn't know the bible's words, he doesn't appear to practice any of the "good" book's teachings, except possibly those that most of us find abhorrent. Yet the atheist majority seems to reject him. The evangelicals voting for him seem to finally have admitted that they are not now, or probably have ever been, a moral agent in this country. Instead of hiding their misery behind the closed doors of the church they are now in the open showing us their disregard for humanity, for anyone who isn't one of them.

Regardless, is there a clear cut critical thinking path to voting for Donald? There are those who are voting for Jill or Gary, or maybe they're not voting for anyone, which would be unimaginable to those who are trying to shape the country into one that is more welcoming to atheists. We know that the conservative party is not our friends, but then again Log Cabin Republicans know the party isn't exactly favoring them as well. 

I think this brings up several points. When it comes to acceptance, are gay republican conservative groups involved because they want to change the "based on religion" opinions of the right? If so, are atheist conservatives doing the same? Wouldn't seem the way to go, but surely there'll be an atheist conservative that'll read this and let us know why he supports a party that as far as I can tell, doesn't support the majority of the population.

Critical thinking should play a part, a very large part in any decision we make. Yes, we have biases and perceptions that will almost always sway us. Yet if there is thought behind a decision it should be able to be discussed. Arguments from concrete facts would seem to point to Hillary, who even with her embrace of a fantasy, still holds on to reality in ways that atheists would like to see from a person running the country.

Many of us are fans of science, it satisfies a need for real resolutions to particular problems we may encounter if there is one. Over at sciencedebate.org they have condensed the answers to many questions that relate to atheists. No candidate received a great review, but Hillary is the best out of the bunch when it comes to acknowledging reality. That would seem to resonate with non-believers when it's time to vote.

Since the republican party is now the party of white christians, how would conservative atheists be able to support those that do not support them? Conservative atheists are not some biblical mythical creature, they exist. This post is in no may meant to disparage, it is to encourage discussion. There is a reason, a feeling, a perception, etc., that guides us in our thinking. 

To be perfectly clear, I have already voted and I voted for Hillary. I waited until after the third debate to let them both make their case. I supported Bernie and would rather have had him running for president, but he's not an option. What he did was to change the democratic platform to a vastly more liberal one than it would have been without his well thought out contributions. I don't personally care for Hillary, but again, she's not stopping by for dinner. I can't stand Trump's arrogance but again he is not stopping by anytime soon either. 

I voted for a platform, not a candidate. I am very interested in opposing views.

Views: 377

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The reason the DNC manipulated the nomination was because they knew that they would not have to pay any price for doing so. The DNC knew that the Democrats would fall in line like sheep and do what they are told regardless of how poorly the DNC behaved. Since you fell in line like a well-trained dog, do you feel ashamed that you sold out?

Considering that Clinton openly and joyfully talks about how much she loves her imaginary friends, one would have to wonder why an atheist, even a sell out like you, would support her.

Is it because you just want to vote for the winning candidate?

Not me, What the DNC did was wrong. They deserve to lose. The only way to break the two party system is to stop voting against the other party and to start voting your values regardless if you lose elections. 

I'm an atheist and I'm not voting for Clinton. That definitely does not make me a conservative. Considering your candidate has positions close enough to Republican positions that she could easily be a Republican, the better question is:

Why are liberal atheist's so scared of Trump that they are willing to vote for someone who is as much against their interests as Trump is?

I'm voting for the Green Party.

To be clear, Jill does believe in the imaginary as well as Johnson:

The closest Stein came to answering the question about her belief or disbelief in a god came towards the end of her rambling response. Stein said she believes in something “spiritual and beyond our grasp,” before concluding her response by saying

I don't fit in any box or conventional view.

During a CNN town hall with Gary Johnson Wednesday night, one voter asked the Libertarian presidential nominee about his faith — something the former New Mexico governor rarely addresses publicly.

“I have to admit to praying once in a while, and, yes, I do believe in God,” he said.

It would seem frivolous to accuse an atheist of voting for a particular religious candidate when they are doing the same.

Interesting, I like your calm attitude. =)

There is no doubt that either Clinton or Trump will be president. For me voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump, so I cannot do it, you are correct, Hillary is to the right of center as far as I'm concerned.

Since Johnson doesn't know what or where Aleppo is, cannot name a world leader when asked, and the platform is an atrocity to this liberal, I cannot vote for him.

I like Jill, but don't see her as qualified, and with one to two percent of the vote I don't see her as having a chance.

I am voting for the democratic platform that Hillary was basically forced to accept, not her.

Thanks for the reply, I do have atheist family members voting for Johnson, but I've never gotten a realistic answer "why" from them.

It would seem your answer is based on dislike for a candidate that I pretty much don't care for either. Again, I'm voting on a platform, which candidate's party platform do you think is better?

I really am not comfortable talking about politics.  It is such an archaic method of governing.  It is based on self interests, and ego.  It is certainly not meeting the needs of humanity on climate change or much of anything else for that matter.  I would prefer a governing system that incorporates the laws of physics into economics, and the scientific method into decision making with a dash of sociology.  Maybe the next evolutionary step, if we don;t destroy ourselves with the current system that is based on myths, dogmas, and superstitions.  Kind of like religion.

Stuck with this primitive system we have, I am forced to base my vote on what little logic I can find.  To my way of thinking there is no point in voting for the lesser of two evils.  You will just end up voting for evil.   So I though about what I was taught is school.   That our vote should be for someone who shares your values, ideologies, and represents you.   Well neither Donald, Hillary or their parties represent me, or my values, or ideologies.  The only party with policies that comes close to my values, ideologies and desires for a progressive future is the Green party.  Jill seems to be a rather intelligent person who really seemed to know the troubles we face, and makes a good argument with her plans to fix this broken mess we are in.  

Now I know she probably does not stand a snow balls chance in somewhere real hot, of getting in, but at least my conscience will be clear, as the disappointments from evil begin.  Second is that there is a real progressive, peaceful revolutionary, movement starting out there, that is making real changes at the grassroots level.  This is were I am focusing my energies to help move humanity in a positive direction with solutions that our dysfunctional Federal government cannot do, because of it ties to corporations, oil, and Wall Street.      

There must be a lot of pressure to place your vote for Hilary in order to stop Trump. But in the end you have to vote the way your conscience tells you.

Thanks for the reasoned answer Dennis. Hard to disagree. My concern is based on not wanting Trump in the White House. I remember the Nader and Perot years, and they both caused problems for both parties. Gore may have been better when it came to climate change concerns, definitely better than Bush in that regard.

There are better ways to choose a candadate.

Typically it's first past pole.

There are alternative voting methods which in my opinion would allow candidates who aren't members of the duopoly to have a chance - and constituants to vote their mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Multiple-winner_methods

Hear hear agree totally, but Trump would be a nightmare. Can you imagine his finger on the Nuke button.

I can not imagine Trump as president, and I think that those who are rightly voting according to their conscience have every right to do so. I'm just looking for the reasoning. 

I would refute the premise that Hillary is an evil, just a lesser evil than Trump. I think she's an intelligent, thoughtful, candidate. Yeah, lots of baggage when you've been associated with politics all your life, and she's definitely made mistakes, but I don't consider errors evil. When I hear she's a lesser evil, I need to be enlightened on that premise. 

I think our democracy is failing. People can not even calmly discuss politics for the most part. There is no negotiating, it's become my way or the highway. As long as everyone is afraid to even bring the subject up, we fail.

I have a neighbor with a Trump/Pence sign out on his property, and I've talked to him briefly about it. He's a nice guy, but he cannot vote for anyone unless they are conservative, no matter how much he may find Trump distasteful. He has voted for the least qualified candidate on the ballot. 

Again, with no rational discussion democracy fails.

I agree with this "Again, with no rational discussion democracy fails" but in future what may happen is the Democrats become so dominant that it splits into a Left and Center party.  We would be much better off with 3 parties so that the center party can negotiate with the left and right parties.  

I agree. But in order to change to a many party system I think the electoral system has to change to a proportional election process instead of a first pass the post system. We in the uk had the opportunity to change to a PR system but we voted against it in a referendum. of course the two main parties campaigned against PR because it allows them to swap places every 5 years. 

Hillary would make a good Republican, while Trump would make a good Libetarian.

Democrats and/or Republicans being center to left doesn't make sense The Universe a Simulation?.

Center to left of what;  Stalin, or Mao?

Stalin and Mao as you know were dictators.

Multiple parties  would allow for more voices in the 'debate.'

"Third Party," is a 'term'  to maintain the duopoly. In reality there are many political parties.

RSS

© 2023   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service