Atheist or Agnostic President?

On the topic syndicated political columnist Cal Thomas had this to say this week:
Theoretically, yes, if such a person was competent and experienced enough to be trusted with the presidency. This is, after all, a "kingdom of this world" office, though many like to infuse it with religious overtones.

Still, I wonder about a person's judgment if he, or she, has embraced paganism with all of the evidence available concerning an orderly universe and the creative mind behind such order. Having judged incorrectly concerning the great "I Am," would a pagan be considered wise enough to judge temporal things? And, in an age when virtually every politician claims some kind of religion, could a pagan win?

Probably not.
I tend to agree with Cal on this one. I don't think that I would vote for an atheist or agnostic. What do you think?


  1. No, I don't think I would either. I became friends with an atheist this year and was surprised to learn that there is a lot of hate towards Christians among some "hard core" atheist groups. I think a "to each his own attitude" is one thing, but an attitude that says "Religion is the cause of all the worlds problems and Christians are ignorant, destructive fools" scares me.

  2. I also worry that there is a lack of humility in an atheist and agnostic, since they see nothing greater than themselves.

  3. I would vote for an atheist or agnostic president, if they would do what I see would be right for this country. Actually, I'd vote for anyone who does what's right. Too bad I'm only 15, so I can't vote.

    Also, to answer therese z:
    You claim that atheists and agnostics see nothing greater than themselves. You're wrong. Many well renowned atheists and agnostics see very many things greater than themselves.
    An example of what I see would be the universe. The universe is so vast, so unpredictable, and so wonderful. The beautiful stars above and the indefinitely large space are greater than me.

    To take a piece from Carl Sagan:
    "For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
    The universe is so great that we humans, so small, living in this pale blue dot in the universe, can only admire it. That's where most of these bronze age myths, such as Christianity, Islam, Egyptian religions, and other beliefs sprout from; they sprout from the universe, to try to answer questions that, at that time, couldn't be answered.

    I don't hate religions, I just see them as an old way of praising the universe for being there. Religions were all created from the love of the universe, so I love religions, as well, it's just the impurity of man that's added to that universal admiration that sets me away from religion.

    Also, yes, I am an atheist.

  4. Thanks for stopping by Brian.

    Most of what you say makes sense from a quasi-intellectual point of view.. of course (I think) it is intellectually dishonest to discount God as a possible universe creator.

    But from a heart perspective believing in God makes sense. When it comes to issues of identity (who we really are and why we do what we do) believing in God is the most rational thing to do.

    And then of course there is the sermon on the mount.. if you have never read it I suggest that you give it a try.. it starts in Matthew 5 with

    Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

    Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

    Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

    Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

    Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

    Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

    Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

    Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    Jesus defies the intellect.. He cannot be explained with science.. He was God manifested in flesh.. He makes sense out of the universe.

  5. I don't discount God as possible "universe creator", I just see using evidence to draw conclusions as more rational way of living than to take a bronze age book with more than 100 contradictions and no evidence for it's claims seriously.

    If I told you that you had some disease and that you'd die tomorrow, wouldn't you want evidence before you start planning for your demise?
    I'd rather look for evidence than emotional support.

    You notice I use "evidence" a lot in this comment. Well, that's because evidence is the foundation of Science AND life. I want to know how the world works, how the universe works, and I want some hard facts to back up anything that's suggested. If I don't see anyone's answers to the question, I look for them myself. I can't see finding all the answers in a single book, with so many obvious contradictions, could hold any merit compared to a an entire universe filled with truths and truths waiting to be discovered.

    Also, there's a book you should read. It's called the Revised King James Bible, by Thomas Jefferson (some call it the Jefferson Bible). He takes out all the supernatural, and only puts the stories that Jesus presents.
    Jesus was a great man, but I really doubt the story behind him.

    I'll end this post with a few of my favorite quotes.

    "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

    "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

    "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

    "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Benjamin Franklin

    Thank you for reading my post. :)

  6. Thanks for coming back Brian. Not sure what the Jefferson bible would do for me as I have read the bible many times in many different translations.. both the supernatural parts and the other parts. I liken Jefferson editting the bible to someone like me editting a physics book.. I could do it but why would anyone give any credibility to the work?

    I understand that not everyone (Jefferson included) is comfortable with the supernatural parts of the bible. What did you like most about Jefferson's editted version versus a more current scholarly rendering of the bible? Do you feel that leaving the supernatural parts out presents a better picture of the historical events? Or do you think that taking God out of the history of a religious culture would present an obscured (and somewhat revisionist) view of history?

    What kind of evidence are you looking for about Jesus? Many who saw him after his resurrection preferred death to denying the resurrection. It seems that this is a bit evidential if you care to accept it? Ever read CS Lewis trilemma proposition that says that there are only 3 choices about Jesus - He was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord and God? I'd be interested in your perspective on it.

    Those quotes are great ones. I love that our country embraces such a diverse view of the bible.. wouldn't have it any other way :)

    Enjoying the dialog Brian. Hope your day is a great one!

  7. I wouldn't mind you taking out parts of a physics book if they weren't proved (just as Jefferson did with the Bible).

    Also, the supernatural parts of the Bible seem to make what Jesus said a lot less important. More people look at the materialistic aspect rather than the actual words that Jesus said.

    The evidence I'm looking for is a tomb where Jesus may have been without his body (back in those times, they would place a stone tablet with the name of the tomb's owner), as well as the way he turned water into wine.

    If I were to "ask God" through prayer, wouldn't I be answered? At one time, I truly was a Christian. I believed with all my heart. I would pray to God for proof so I could "save" the atheists, but it never came. It's just when you see the other aspect, the evidence, proof, and intelligent conversations with atheists that I began to wonder what it'd be like.

    The proof I need, though, would be seeing it, I can't believe it, otherwise. Oh, and before anyone says "Have you seen evolution/big bang/etc" (just in case someone like that sees my comment), it's been observed. Evolution has been seen, from bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, to animals "speciating" (becoming another species, in which they can't mate with other species) in labs.
    And the galaxies near ours are all moving away, using Trigonometrical formulas to show how it works, as well as using a simulation with those attributes to give an idea as to how fast/far they are.

    Also, I think Jesus was a lunatic, if real, at all.

    Having a diverse country is fun, really. I always like debating, and it's nice to see a Christian who actually sees what I'm saying (the only ones I know like you are my friends). It's just when you accidentally tell a fundamentalist that you're atheist is when you're in trouble.
    Around where I live (Mississippi), there's more fundamentalists than you could count. They go after the "God hating atheists", and they have used violent force and recite Exodus and Deuteronomy to "justify" their attacks.

    What really gets me about that is the fact they say we "hate God", when I couldn't hate something/someone I don't think exists.

    This video is actually a common thing where I live. Although no one has been so ill that they've died, the people around them would pray rather than take them to a doctor.

    Again, I'll end with some quotes.

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry

    "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." - Isaac Asimov

    "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." - Delos B. McKown

    "It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image." - Ludwig Feuerbach

    "You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate." - Richard A. Weatherwax

    "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." - Unknown (Anonymous quote)

    Thanks, again, for reading. :)

  8. Thanks again Brian for coming back.. sorry that I hve been so late in responding.

    I appreciate your heart to know truth and your excellent exposition of your thoughts.

    I am interested in what your basis of thinking that Jesus was a lunatic.. please explain your rationale when you get a minute.

    Have a great week!


  9. Well if he's real, he was a lunatic, if he claimed to be the son of God.

    Although, that's only the Bible's account, no other historical account has been made about a man named Jesus who was (or claimed to be) the son of God. Back in those times, Romans made records of everything, so why no historical Roman literature made on him?

    So, Jesus could be real and not a lunatic, if what the Bible says about himself claiming to be the son of God is false, but that would contradict the Christian belief in the Bible. So, I just assume he's a either lunatic based on the Biblical claims, or he never existed based on Roman historical literature. However, if there's proof of his existence while he never claimed to be the son of God, then I'd revoke my statement.

    Here's a link you should look at:

    Thank you for reading. :) Hope you have a nice week, too.

    PS: I hope I don't seem like I'm trying to push my ideals on to you. I like to say a lot, and I have a bad habit of going on and on.

  10. Hi Brian,

    Thanks again for continuing the dialog. I looked over the article you link to and I am not sure that I can say anything to change your mind on this other than to say that.. if what the article says is true.. it is utterly amazing how so much of the world has been changed by a mythical figure.. no one person has ever influenced the world like the biblical Jesus has.. no one has ever uttered the wisdom He communicated in the sermon on the mount.. people who knew Him were martyred rather than deny him.. people today are still martyred for like reasons.

    That said I have to say that I understand why atheists must attack the historicity of Jesus. He is THE question of history.. and it is convenient to say that He was just the Jewish version of the mythical Ares (the son of Zeus and Hera).. it helps one skirt the question of who He was and is.

    If one capitulates and says that He did exist then they have to carefully consider His claims and the claims of those who knew Him.

    Have a great weekend.


  11. Sorry, I just have to respond to one of Brian's comments:
    "Evolution has been seen, from bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, to animals "speciating" (becoming another species, in which they can't mate with other species) in labs."

    Bacteria "becoming immune" to antibiotics happens because of a loss of genetic information. Speciation doesn't prove anything, either. A loss of genetic information is not evidence of molecules-to-man evolution. If you could produce an example of speciation where there is an overall increase in useful information, you'd be on to something, but alas, no such example exists.

  12. Hi Casey,

    The loss of genetic information is, in a sense, the nuts-and-bolts of evolution. It is the process by which genetic information that produces species less ideal for a given environment leaves the gene pool.

    I'm not going to pretend you didn't know this, but evolution was not molecules to man--even to say that they are separated by a chain would be dishonest. Evolution is more like a tree, becoming more and more broad, with all but a fraction of the branches ending long before the present. I feel that this is more observable than that which is found in the Bible.


  13. It took me a long time to search on the net, only your site open up the fully details, bookmarked and thanks again.

    - Kris

  14. I know that this thread is a good few years old, and, as trends of the internet go, Brian probably hasn't read this in some time, which is unfortunate, because I quite liked reading his arguments, especially considering they were coming from a 15 year old (which is not meant as a slight in any way, just that I wish I felt then how I feel now).

    Anyway, I'm simply here to throw in my opinions.

    I feel that Christianity, and more so religion in general, are a detriment to humanity, not in the way that it is destroying humanity, but in the way that it distracts humanity. It distracts people, on both an individual and collective level, from life, or so I feel. It distracts people from living their lives on earth in a manner that they truly appreciate, and it distracts people from the permanence of death. Personally, and I know that I'm now kind of ranting, I feel that religion spawned from, one, as Brian was saying, the desire to understand and fully appreciate the surrounding universe, and two, from a deep-seated fear of the unknown - more specifically death.

    While I believe all of this, I do not consider myself to be an atheist - I tend to, if at all, label myself as agnostic - and as such, refuse to discount the idea that there is some for of greater power based on the idea that I will never truly know during my time here on earth; to quote Into The Wild, "There's something greater here we can all appreciate, and I don't mind calling it God." As far as I am concerned, the Christian idea of god could be as true as the existence of my life (which some would debate, and their ideologies I too do not denounce based on the fact that I simply cannot answer the questions with any certainty), but, as far as logic is concerned, I simply cannot believe in a god; the idea of adhering to something that seems so ridiculous simply because it is often interpreted as fact is something that is foreign to me. That being said, I think the Bible is a complete work of fiction, and I too have read Jefferson's revised King James Bible, and found it to be far more beneficial than its predecessor. I don't feel either are necessary, though, because as ancient history has shown us, morality does exist free of religion, contrary to the arguments of most fundamentalist, and even avid-Christians.

  15. @Anonymous - Thanks for stopping by and contributing to the discussion. Interesting that you landed here instead of a more current post on the topic.

    I tend to agree with "morality does exist free of religion" but, IMO, morality does not exist apart from God. Ever wonder why we are born with a sense of morality? I think that it is because God created us that way.

    I understand what you are saying about religion being a detriment to humanity and can agree in part. This saying from another blogger says it for me: "We as Christians do not believe that Christianity is the truth, we believe that Christ is the truth." Many things are done in the name of religion that are antithetical to the teachings and life of Jesus and therefore are a detriment to humanity.

    Thanks again for coming by. If you pass by here again please leave a name so that I do not have to address you as Anonymous. It gets confusing when several people comment anonymously.


I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.