God, I love the ignorance.

Seriously though...what the fuck?

I can explain this; Americans are just sick of Godless regimes running our country. What we now want is a black catholic of Jewish descent. Apparently, A 72 year-old gay Mormon has a better shot than an atheist.

Well, at least the cup is almost half full... :-(

Just as Richard Dawkins said, they don't trust us.

stankinjenkins said it all. Wow, what a strange country!!! Mark, Valparaiso, Chile

Uh, if you´re a black jewish woman, do you then stand a 274% chance of being elected? Guess I missed something here...

As a 73 year old homosexual atheist whose been married 3 times, I've still got a 3% chance, don't I?

Re stankinjenkins: If I remember how percentages work (and that's iffy), a 72-year old gay Mormon would have a 22.57% chance (.57)(.55)(.72), which is lower than an atheist's chances (45%). That being said, I find it more suprising that Married 3 Times beats out Homosexual...so much for the sanctity of marriage.

I suspect these numbers are actually inflated across the board. The question stipulates that the candidate is "generally well qualified", which causes people to evaluate the target attribute at a conscious level and in an isolated "all else being equal" way. In reality I bet that unconscious prejudice would result in post hoc rationalizations about the person's degree of qualification.

Also the way the poll is phrased makes it sound like what people are answering is whether they would ever vote for the person. Obviously elections aren't really "this person or no one" -- they're a choice among candidates. Presumably a lot of the people who "would vote for a Catholic" might rather vote for a Protestant, all else being equal. And if the other candidate is a cardboard box, that will affect the results too. I say this because my initial reaction was, "wow, the atheist is the only one below 50 percent", but of course it's not the case that the other groups would necessarily win just because over 50 percent would potentially vote for them in a vacuum.

None of this is necessarily to say that the relative ratings aren't meaningful, but I don't think we should take the actual numbers too seriously. In general, careful attention should be paid to the wording of poll questions. This is the experimental psychologist in me talking.

Atheists are not trusted because, quite frankly, the label doesn't tell you anything about the individual. Atheism is NOT a set of beliefs - it's the rejection of a theistic world view. If someone tells you they are Catholic, Black, Jewish, etc; you (hopefully) get a rough sense of their background, morals, or priorities.

If someone tells you they are atheist, you get nothing. Ok, Sparky, it's lovely that you feel there is no god... well, what DO you believe?

The term 'atheism' defines no set of beliefs, so quit attaching yourself to an empty term. If you mark yourself with a hollow label, people will assume you are hollow.

M. Eileen, 'Atheism' does not define 'no set of beliefs.' It simply doesnt define a set of believes tantamount to tooth fairies, improbable conceptions, superstitions and astrology. Atheists have a very strong set of beliefs. They believe in the Golden Rule and scientifically tested fact over fiction, which based on the disaster of the current administration, would be a refreshing change.

Another nitpicky note from me qua experimentalist regarding combinations... There's no way to make any conclusions about what the numbers would be for a person who falls into multiple categories, especially since we don't know how the people in the survey are distributed (or even if the same people were asked about each category). It's conceivable (though highly unlikely) that all of the people who'd vote for an atheist would also vote for a woman, and that these things don't interact, so that a female atheist still just has a 45% chance. At the other extreme, it's possible that the 45% who would vote for an atheist are a completely nonoverlapping set with the 55% who would vote for a 72-year-old. Again, there's no particular reason why this should be so, but it illustrates a point. If this were the case then a 72-year-old atheist would have maybe a 2% chance (corresponding to the small degree of overlap), and that adding a third category could push it down to 0.

Even more complicated are the people who would be more likely to vote for someone in a particular category, say a woman, just because of that attribute. In this case, two combined attributes could offset each other and a female atheist could possibly have a better chance than a male atheist.

[/pedantic]

re:If someone tells you they are atheist, you get nothing. Ok, Sparky, it's lovely that you feel there is no god... well, what DO you believe?

i think that any sort of campaign for president would cover these answers. That's what a campaign is really supposed to be, letting the populace know in what you believe, and how you will act upon those beliefs given the chance to run the country.

i know what you are getting at, but doesn't basing initial beliefs on race or religion mean that you're a racist or...theist (? hah)

ack. I failed to revise part of that last comment. I meant to talk about a nonoverlapping set of people who would vote for an atheist and a homosexual (not an atheist and a 72-year-old), in which case an atheist homosexual would have zero chance. All of this is on the simplistic assumption that people have certain "filters" for attributes, and that these simply work subtractively. It's also possible that attributes could interact in some sort of weighting scheme, so that even for a randomly distributed set of people the percentages wouldn't be strictly multiplicative.

I'm really done now. I promise.

M. Eileen writes:

"The term 'atheism' defines no set of beliefs."

No, the term 'atheism' is used to denote one very specific belief: the belief that there is no God.

Notice you answered your own question to Sparky:

"Ok, Sparky, it's lovely that you feel there is no god... well, what DO you believe?"

What DOES Sparky believe? You just said it: he believes THAT THERE IS NO GOD!

Sheesh. Distrusted AND misunderstood... but I'm sure the reason for the former has a lot to do with the latter.

Actually Atheism is indeed a set of beliefs;

Atheists are rational thinkers, and are usually more educated than non-Atheists. They are certainly far more intellectually curious... there's no point in having a brain and not using it.

They are also generally more moral that their religious neighbors- it is impossible for a religious person to do a genuinely selfless thing, for they are always aware that they are being watched and judged by God.

Even sacrificing their own life for anotherless fortunate person (while certainly praiseworthy, whatever the motovation) is sullied by the fact that they expect death to be only a passing into an eternal afterlife.

Who is more honest/moral- the person who doesn't steal when a policeman is watching your every move, or one that doesn't steal when there isn't any police around (or even likely to show up).

Without religion, there would only be 2 kinds of people- people who do good things (good people) and people who do bad things (bad people).

Only religion gives you good people that do bad things.

One of the scariest comments I've heard from a religious person whas the idea that if there was no God, everyone would be raping and killing each other. In other words, the only think keeping a lot of religious people from becoming monsters is their belief in God...

...now there's morality for you!

zakdegrassi, I have to disagree. Atheism is the belief there is no god. That's it... that is all the term signifies. So instead of trying to define yourself with an absence, why not speak of what you DO believe in.

You mentioned belief in the Golden Rule and the validity of the Scientific Method. Good! Excellent - now we can actually connect. Now I can get an idea of what You stand for.

Do you get my point, Z?

Just an aside:

If you hold the assumption that atheism and religion do not mix, here is fun little factoid for you: The Jain religion is an atheist religion. They very explicit state that there is no such thing as god. Nothing created the universe, and those who believe otherwise are "foolish" and "ill-advised"

They also hold the belief that if you kill anything you will never escape an endless cycle of rebirth. That is why they carry little brooms to sweep away little bugs off their path so that they don't accidentally step on them.

So my point: 'atheism' isn't necessarily connected with the Golden Rule or Scientific Method (or anti-bug brooms). It is simply 'there is no god'.

Dustin Locke, you may want to rethink the wisdom of defining your beliefs around a negative:

I believe in no god...

Therefore you believe in nothing? (No god = nothing) So what do you believe in?

"One of the scariest comments I've heard from a religious person was the idea that if there was no God, everyone would be raping and killing each other. In other words, the only think keeping a lot of religious people from becoming monsters is their belief in God..."

That is a sad thought. It is shame that person had so little faith in his fellow man. Hopefully he will remember that people are actually good and deserve our complete courtesy.

jonnymiami- Haha, ok booger, you're right; you caught me. Making such assumptions is a bit dangerous. But I think if you take it for what it is, a relatively meaningless assumption, you are pretty safe.

Just consider it as a frame of reference... a starting point for the conversation. I think the moment you begin to feel these assumptions concretely define someone... that is when you run into trouble.

M. Eileen,

So should we define all persons by what they don't believe in? Why do you insist on defining an atheist as "nothing"?

I understand you are trying to understand what an atheist believes but you are limiting your comprehension of what "belief" is to a simplistic God or no God concept. As an atheist I try not to judge folks on having a belief in God, it would be awfully nice if believers could try and do the same. Unfortunately because of their belief that is often not possible.

Thus, that is why this study is interesting. The culture of "belief" means that "non-believers" are not as accepted because of their "non-belief" and your insistence on us defining ourselves with a belief is saying that there is something inherently wrong with us.

Actually, it would be pretty interesting to have the numbers of other countries for a comparison: I've googled a bit, but unfortunately I only found very little data. The only somehow comparable polls:

- In a 2005 German poll 77% declared they would appreciate a woman becoming their next chancellor (Q: "Would you appreciate a woman becoming chancellor?"), 12% said they would not (o.k., there's still a difference between "would not mind" and "would appreciate" ...).

- According to a poll conducted by the French magazine Elle in January 2006, even 94% of the French electorate would appreciate a woman becoming French president.

- In a 2001 poll conducted in Germany 84% declared they would not mind voting for a gay major. Ironically, that poll was payed by a rather conservative publishing house. :-)

The Jain religion is an atheist religion. -- M.Eileen

What absolute fucking twaddle!

Jainism is a religion. It holds that everyone's got an immortal soul, and that you are forever reborn, unless you live your life according to certain rules -- at which point you reach nirvana, or Moksha.

Does that sound like atheism to you?

Ah, I can tell you, I live in Germany's capital and most populated city, Berlin, and our mayor Klaus Wowereit (affectionately referred to as "Wowie", I'm not kidding) is completely gay and even attends public functions with his partner and kisses him on camera and so on, it's absolutely no issue at all. I think it's even his 3rd term...

Well I think it was meant as a comment on the immorality of atheists, but I think it says more about the morality of (some) religious people.

After all, prisons are not full of atheists... at least not as a percentage of the overall population ( atheists are ~8-16% of the population, but only 0.21% of the prison population)...

Catholic 29267 39.164% Protestant 26162 35.008% Muslim 5435 7.273% American Indian 2408 3.222% Nation 1734 2.320% Rasta 1485 1.987% Jewish 1325 1.773% Church of Christ 1303 1.744% Pentecostal 1093 1.463% Moorish 1066 1.426% Buddhist 882 1.180% Jehovah Witness 665 0.890% Adventist 621 0.831% Orthodox 375 0.502% Mormon 298 0.399% Scientology 190 0.254% Atheist 156 0.209% Hindu 119 0.159% Santeria 117 0.157% Sikh 14 0.019% Bahai 9 0.012% Krishna 7 0.009%

An atheist is a non-theist.

Stupid GIt, I never said there was anything inherently wrong with you. Actually I don't think there is anything wrong with You. I just don't think the term 'atheism' has as much meaning as you think it does. Atheism does not mean you necessarily believe in the golden rule and logical thought (Z's view). It also doesn't mean that you are angry, evil monsters (some fanatical peoples' view). It also doesn't mean that your favorite color is blue and your favorite food is Mac&Cheese.

All atheism says about you is that you believe there is no god.

Even Dawkins alludes to this when he says that everyone is atheistic about something... Like he says, you don't believe in Thor do you?

So here's a challenge for you. I will declare right now that I am aThor. I believe there is no Thor. Knowing this, what can you deduce about my character? What kind of a person am I?

Obviously, you can't. Because I haven't said anything. I have only told you what I think is false. I have said nothing of who I AM - what I DO believe in.

... It seems a bit silly to keep going over this point. If you want to read more on this topic, look up Dan Barker. If I remember right, he wrote about this quite a bit.

Dzwonka, chill man, no need to freak. Jainism believes that there is NO god... therefore it is atheistic. Yet, as you stated, it is a religion. Thank you for illustrating my point that atheism and religion can play nice together. This is a case of a religion that has no god.

Norm, you rock! I completely agree.

Regarding the ostensibly prevalent belief that if there were no god everyone would rape and murder and steal all the time... I can't help but wonder if what that really reflects is a notion of what would happen, not if there were no god from the start, but if there were a god for a while, that morality was derived from fear of that god, and then that god disappeared, thereby breaking the bonds of morality. I don't mean in the Nietzchean sense of "God is dead" as in the philosophical notion of God is obsolete, but the more literal metaphysical sense, where God actually dies or otherwise goes out of existence.

I imagine that it is so difficult for many people of faith to conceive of a world that has never contained something so central to their conception of the universe (and I don't mean to be condescending -- it's really difficult for me to imagine a world without, say, time), that when asked to do so they resort to thinking about the cessation of God, and imagine that it would be sort of analogous to a power outage that results in looting. Naturally this is different than a world that never had electric power. This world would not result in rampant looting. It didn't when it was the world.

One of the scariest comments I've heard from a religious person whas the idea that if there was no God, everyone would be raping and killing each other. In other words, the only think keeping a lot of religious people from becoming monsters is their belief in God...

Funny thing is, I often get the feeling when speaking with fundamentalists that for them their fears might be partly justified. Strongly fundamentalist people I have known are often pretty "damaged". It doesn't surprise me at all to learn that a Christian fundamentalist today as was a communist on the street corner handing out the Daily Worker two years ago or was emotionally damaged in their childhood. It is my feeling (prejudice, if you like) that one only wholly accepts any ideology, religious or otherwise, without serious critical evaluation if one's internal moral/ethical compass is defective in some way.

Having argued at some length with certain fundies, I have consciously decided to press no further for fear that I might actually win and release someone inside who is really dangerous!

anybody find an actual source on this? www.pollingreport.com is a dead link, and googling finds similar surveys by newsweek, but not quite this one.

so quit attaching yourself to an empty term. If you mark yourself with a hollow label, people will assume you are hollow.

M.Eileen,

Sure, I'll give you that humans have developed a need to identify things, and give people a way to identify themselves, the things they know, and what they don't understand but exist none the less. As far as an individual's identity goes, sure all atheists don't have a core set of beliefs, but what else are they going to call themselves when people are determined to label other people. Sadly they just get tossed into the "other" category, and disregarded because they don't stand out in a majority. Atheism is not hollow, it IS the "other" category.

If you feel the need to label yourselves and other people, go ahead. people can assume all they want in order to convince themselves they understand what they really don't understand. I don't bother with labeling, I feel that doing so is completely pointless.

M. Eileen,

Don't get too excited the abscence of a descriptive label that is associated with specific beliefs is not the same thing as saying they are hollow. You wrote:

If you mark yourself with a hollow label, people will assume you are hollow.

A rather silly statement I must say. If I define my self as a non-bowler do you assume I'm hollow? It is reasonable to assume that most atheists have a naturalistic world view. That they probably favor rational thought etc. None of the labels are particularly useful without additional information. I find it interesting that you believe the mere fact that someone is Black tells you something about what values they might hold or to what ethical system they subscribe. Are you able to do the same thing with other racial groups?

If you feel the need to label yourselves and other people, go ahead. people can assume all they want in order to convince themselves they understand what they really don't understand. I don't bother with labeling, I feel that doing so is completely pointless.

I would say that labels are incomplete. They can never catch the whole person, only aspects, so in the end it is a bit pointless.

However, people do feel a need to define themselves and their existence, and I don't really see the harm in such an exercise.

As for the "other" category - I have always thought of it as Freethinkers... those who believe in freedom of thought and logical scientific deduction. Facts and beliefs are developed through scientific experience.

Therefore because I am a Freethinker, I believe there is no God. Why? Because there is no evidence of any deity. If the religious community could produce verifiable evidence to the contrary, I would change my mind. It's just simple logic. There's nothing 'demonic' here.

"Dustin Locke, you may want to rethink the wisdom of defining your beliefs around a negative:

I believe in no god...

Therefore you believe in nothing? (No god = nothing) So what do you believe in?"

M. Eileen, you can't possibly be serious. If someone told you that they believed there was no tooth fairy, would you respond with "so you belive in nothing? (no tooth fairy = nothing)"?

It's really very simple, M. There is something that you BELIEVE exists and that I BELIEVE doesn't exist.

Do not mistake my belief that God DOES NOT exist with a LACK of belief that God DOES exists. I of course LACK the belief that God DOES exists, but I also HAVE the believe that God DOES NOT exist.

M. Eileen, you can't possibly be serious. If someone told you that they believed there was no tooth fairy, would you respond with "so you belive in nothing? (no tooth fairy = nothing)"?

No, my response would be, "well, what DO you believe in?"

And so my response to you, Dustin, would be, "What do you believe in? So there is no god. Who cares? What do you think about health care? What about this war the US has gotten into? What guides your moral compass?

What beliefs do you hold to be TRUE? This is what matters. Why would I care about what you believe to be illusions (in this case, god) I want to know what you feel is Real.

If I define my self as a non-bowler do you assume I'm hollow?

Haha - no that is just silly. I would say that "non-bowler" says nothing about you. "Non-anything" says nothing about you. It is simply the absence of bowling... there is plenty that is there, what is it?

Do you see what I mean by hollow. It rules things out, but it says nothing of what you are.

Let's see if I can draw a parallel... I am non-white, what am I? I could be anything: purple, green, yellow. I'm just, non-white.

So you are non-theist. Well, that leaves plenty of options as to what you believe... what do you believe?

It's really very simple, M. There is something that you BELIEVE exists and that I BELIEVE doesn't exist.

Haha, it is funny that you assume I believe in god. I have said nothing of the sort. I have just said that 'atheist' is a pretty hollow label that says nothing of who I am... I guess this just proves Gaulder's point that all labeling is, in the end, pointless.

Alright, thanks for the debate, all! I've enjoyed the exchange, but I gotta date. Have a good night!

Hello all. I'm a long time reader, first time poster.

Wonkette linked to the same "who would you vote for" data shown in this post, but with trend lines for many of the categories as far back as 1960. Atheist just recently fell behind homosexual.

Wow. If you really think that A) my assumption that you were a theist was at all relevant to the question of whether the term "atheism" denotes a belief and B) my mistaken assumption somehow proves that "all labeling is pointless", then that's all I can really say: WOW.

On the topic of labels, I wonder if they would be any more open to the thought of a "secular humanist" candidate than an "atheist" one.

My sense is yes, but I'm not sure.

Dzwonka, chill man, no need to freak. Jainism believes that there is NO god... therefore it is atheistic. Yet, as you stated, it is a religion. -- M.Eileen

Look, there might be a textbook definition of atheism somewhere, that describes it as "non-belief in God," but that's merely because the term arose from a Christian culture. Atheism is a-theistic; non-theistic. It is irreligious -- regardless of whether a religion contains gods, spirits, xetans or pink fluffy fairy fucking unicorns. By mislabelling atheism in this way, you are doing it a great disservice. It is hardly any better than a deranged crusifix-junkie accusing atheism of being a sect of Islam.

And hey, if you've got half a dozen posts in a thread, it means you are either a troll, or you're being trolled -- or you're talking out of your ass and shouldn't be fucking posting here at all (and if that sounds offensive, let me put it politely: your online communication ability may not be up to par).

LOL

Let's be thankful they didn't include the numbers on convicted criminals... otherwise Atheists would have been ranked 11 instead of 10!

Atheist: Prove God does not exist.

Theist: Prove God does exist.

Boom-cha! Neither can't. So why not just love one another and help each other out? All theist are not violent, as are all atheist. All you need is Love.

I notice that 'Muslim' is not a catagory. Perhaps atheists wouldn't be last if that were included.

Geneve... my two cents exactly, don't think muslims would be high on the list, hehe, you guys got it easy :P

correction, replied to marc not geneve

Honestly this isn't at all suprising. It is obvious from the world we live in that Atheism is detested, perhaps the only thing worse than believing in the wrong God.

To be completely blunt I really don't think everybody can be an atheist, some people need God, they need the threat of an omnipresent policeman who will punish them if they do wrong. I don't need that, my conscience is enough, and judging from most comments neither do you but some people do.

It's not on this poll, but I've heard it cited several times (in video clips posted on this site) that atheists actually finish below Muslims when that question is included.

Though I'm not sure whether that was an election poll... I seem to remember it talking about the "least trusted" groups, and those who "share your vision of America"... something like that.

Hi:

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I too am dismayed by the poll showing atheists are still at the bottom of the poll in terms of acceptance in a position of public responsibility. The American public on the whole still conflates belief in a deity with the existence of morality.

However, this is the first time I've heard anywhere that in order to be an atheist one has to hold to the Golden Rule or abide by scientific rationalism, unless 'atheism' now is being used as a community/identity tag that's transcended its original meaning. Scientific rationalism may (although I would guess for almost everyone here, it's more like a must) lead to atheism, but it is not necessarily a two way street.

I vehemently disagree with M. Eileen position that atheism is a belief in nothing, or rather not a belief, but she did have one good point about the co-existence of atheism and religious traditions. There has been a lot of scholarly ink spilled about whether or not Asian religious traditions such as Daoism, Buddhism and Jainism are atheist, theist, non-theist, non-religious, philosophy in the guise of a religion, etc. To simply baldly state that atheism as something automatically inverse to anything tagged as religion is short-handed and rather, well, close-minded. Again, it may be that atheism has now meanings which most American such as myself do not understand. In which case, I may humbly suggest that that is the problem faced by "atheists", that they mean one thing when they say atheism, and the American public thinks another thing when they hear atheism. Maybe rationalists, secular humanists, or just plain humanists work better to describe the whole of a person's intellectual and moral outlook than atheism.

In any event, I look forward to the day that I judge our potential leaders not on labels such as "Christian, Muslim, Homosexual, Atheist, etc." but on qualities such as honesty (both moral and intellectual), courage, and compassion, things which our current leaders are said to have in abundance, but which betray their absence in them with every mistake they make and every so-called success they triumph about.

As personal disclosure to the above, I consider myself an atheistic Buddhist, which may or may not be complete bullshit depending on who you ask.

Though I'm not sure whether that was an election poll... I seem to remember it talking about the "least trusted" groups, and those who "share your vision of America"... something like that.

Indeed atheists rank below muslims here's the link

--just plain humanists work better to describe the whole of a person's intellectual and moral outlook than atheism. --

I think you are on to something here. I am no longer an athiest, rather I have converted to humanism. Wonder if it will matter? Will they accept me if I worship friendship?

Hi:

--"I think you are on to something here. I am no longer an athiest, rather I have converted to humanism. Wonder if it will matter? Will they accept me if I worship friendship?"--

To be perfectly honest, it might make a difference to some people, but from your post, it sounds like it's a moot question whether or that matters to you.

The thrust of my suggestion was that it could simply be easier to refer to oneself using another word that is more understandable to all parties, especially when engaging in political conversation. For example, technically I speak the Southern Min language, but since maybe 0.001% of people in the US knows what the hell that is, I simply say I speak Chinese. Of course something is lost in that conversion, but it is more than made up by the fact that the people in this conversation are speaking on the same page.

I can imagine that people like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and JFK would never get elected today. None of them liked church and JFK was the only really religious person out of the bunch but he despised the fact that he'd have to attend mass because of his presidency.

Voting someone for president because they are a Christian (and only the correct Christian, sorry Mit) makes about as much sense as electing someone because they were a Hollywood actor (sorry Arnold and Ronny).

Speaking of Hollywood actors, it would have been entertaining to see where Scientologists fall in all this. As for atheists' position, it's not at all surprising, but that doesn't make it any less depressing.

According to the link Micky posted, I'm happy that at least the trend seems to be growing in our favor, though it is puzzling that women's electability is now slipping a little bit.

I suspect that this data is more hopeful than we give it credit.

As President Bush has shown, being a born-again Christian tells us absolutely nothing about the quality of decision maker we will get in a politician. Furthermore, just being Christian in the US is practically meaningless when most everyone cherry picks beliefs and guidelines for his or her own behavior. The largest portion of US citizens consider themselves Christians so, of course, they are more willing to support a fellow Christian. And, more importantly, there are a very large percentage of people that are atheist sympathizers. That should be what we take positively from this. Sure, believers of any ilk can feel more chummy about others that believe, just because they can understand "spiritual" people better, being "spiritual" themselves. As more people come out of the closet as agnostics and atheists I think we are going to see the number of sympathizers rise. There will always be "believers" that hate/fear atheists. What would be more interesting would be to see how these numbers have changed or change over the recent past and future decades.

We need to rethink this more positively not just see this as all negative. This may tell us more about tribal behavior than anything else.

Take a look at Guiliani. He is Catholic, but you wouldn't know it by looking at his core beliefs. All labels do is allow people to assume.

And I think we all know what happens when we assume...

Atheists, theists, humans: need to believe in themselves. When faced with a question, they should be able to, without hesitation, choose the answer that they feel is right. They should not have to rely on principles set in stone. They can draw inspiration from them, sure but blindly following them without question is wrong.

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

Yeah, to be honest, I don't like you either.

Atheists are always smug, arrogant pricks, and this site only reinforces that.

I'm only here for the Comedy clips.

It's always nice when someone posts a comment accusing everyone in a certain category of, for example, being "smug, arrogant pricks", and furthermore does so anonymously. First of all, all sweeping generalizations are wrong. Second, it's not like you have to give your real name or anything. If you want to be an ass, at least sign your assishness.

Obviously it's not that there aren't some, even a lot, of atheists -- on this site even -- who are smug, arrogant pricks. But in principle, which is more smug? To firmly believe there is no god, based on a lack of any evidence (but having a willingness to change one's mind if some should come along)? Or to believe that you know with a great sense of certainty that there is some god and this is what it's like (without evidence), and that anyone who believes otherwise is subject to eternal damnation, but that you are going to heaven because only you and those like you are righteous and moral?

I ask again, which is more smug and arrogant?

And obviously I'm not placing every (even most) religious people under that description. That would be like saying that atheists are always smug and arrogant.

Change that "every" in that last paragraph to "all"... Grammatical errors are so embarrassing. :-)

The Mormon statistic really got me. I don't think many people know exactly what a Mormon believes. it's basically like the "What if..." comic book version of Christianity...

So this guy named John Smith finds a book in a cave in upstate New York that says that Jesus actually visited the Americas right before he ascended to heaven because there was a tribe of early Israelites who crossed the Ocean (or land-bridge, depending on who you ask) and settled in what is now America. They were slaughtered by a tribe of TOTALLY bad people (the ancestors of Native Americans) and one guy survived to write their epic story.

And you would vote for someone who believed this over someone who simply believed in a natural, not magical, origin of life and the universe? Weird.

Just think, if it were not for Will&Grace and Queer Eye...Homos might have been categorized beneath atheists.

Can you tell I place a lot of credence on the power of television to affect/change perceptions?

Atheists need a sit-com to help their public persona. How about Will&Graceless. Or: Atheist Eye for the Evangelicals. And not some faceless narrator on NOVA!

When the National Council of Churches published the Old Testament part of their Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible, they disproved Christianity -- Isaiah 7.14, "almah" and all that.

Mormonism should have been a tad easier to disprove, with Joe Smith's fraud conviction records, but the nail in the intellectual coffin on that mythology might be the DNA records of native American Indians -- they descended from the ancient Hebrews (very bad Hebrews too -- well, they were both good and bad, but the bad ones killed all the good ones), according to Mormonism. According to their DNA, they came from Asia.

Oh shit, I'm breathing through my nose. I'd better stop it, before someone accuses me of being smug and arrogant, and you know, stuff...

Smug and arrogant? What the hell -- this is like that reality show, Housewives, Real Wives of Orange County, or whatever it was called... This bimbo wanted to cook something, and she tried (unsuccessfully) to open this packet by tearing it and biting it, when her boyfriend told her to use the kitchen scissors instead. She went, "What, there are special scissors just for the kitchen?!" and he went, "yeah." Then she complained that the scissors looked really dumb, and that they should have been made to look prettier -- before accusing him of being mean, and of making her feel stupid. Then, she started crying.

That's life, baby. If you have a couple of neurons to rub together; if your intellect surpasses that of a lobotomised tapworm on acid, you will eventually be accused of being smug and arrogant -- or of being mean and intentionally making people feel stupid.

wow, this is one of the most interesting threads i've seen here in a long time. thank you, m.eileen, and all those who responded so intelligently. i found myself agreeing pretty much with everything s/he said, except for the thing about being black or jewish implying a particular viewpoint that norm caught. no, i don't think you necessarily have to believe in the golden rule to be an atheist, and i agree that in general saying you don't believe in something says nothing about what you do believe-with one important caveat: what atheists don't believe in really is a big, important idea, and to say you don't believe in it really is making a big important statement which is plenty descriptive. i think that you are just shooting yourselves in the foot to keep bringing up the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. i'm sorry, but to say you don't believe in the tooth fairy is NOT the same as saying you don't believe in god, and you're only demeaning yourselves to make this claim. have some self respect.

Black female jewish atheists: -5

"To firmly believe there is no god, based on a lack of any evidence".

this pretty much encapsulates why i am uncomfortable with the "atheist" label. i mean, just scientifically speaking, how can you firmly believe anything based on a LACK of evidence? i agree with gauldar about labels in general, but it's just the way people think, catorigization is necessary to a certain extent as far as i can tell, and if you want to be part of the dialogue (there are no obligations, of course) than you gotta play the label game on some level.

when i was growing up, before "atheism" became such a fad, we were called "secular humanists"- which i like, because it implies something positive- or an even older term which i like even better: freethinkers, which nicely includes two of my favorite notions, "free" and "thinker" :). i like that one the best because its so inclusive. a "freethinker" could theoretically even believe in god, as long as it wasn't because someone told him to. an atheist isn't free in this sense. at least in these politically polarized times, it seems that many atheists seeking wisdom automatically reject ideas from the religious world. its not the "reject" part that saddens me, its the "automatically" part.

consider this as a plea for a return to "freethinking".

"First of all, all sweeping generalizations are wrong."

A little irony for the ages, quite the logical conundrum.

Hey, 45% is far more than I would have expected. It's more than would vote for George Bush right now!

They Don't Like Us

Honestly how does this come as a surprise though?

These polls are taken by braindead Americans like these. The scary part is that they vote at all.

reject ideas from the religious world

It is true that atheist reject that which is supernatural, but I'm curious what ideas from the religious world you have in mind when say atheists automatically reject them. Firmly believe there is no god is just a measure of confidence one has in a belief. Firmly believe is just a six on Dawkins scale of one to seven. One being a strong theist and seven being a strong atheist.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/agnosticism.html

M.Eileen--I whole-heartedly agree with what you've said. I've often thought along those lines about the 'atheist' label, but never found a way to say it so well as you have. It really is a pretty useless, negative label, and I think it conveniently heaps everyone like us into a nice homogenous trash heap, at least in the eyes of the more hardline theists. Atheist is like a codeword for 'amoral' for, I would say, the majority of Americans (my own made up statistic). So we should happily play along and proudly proclaim our atheism? I suppose that could satiate one's appetite for rebellion for a few years, but it says essentially nothing about what we bring to the table. It's like if I was running for President in my own newly created political party, which I've provocatively named "The Anti-Business Party". My party stands for fair trade practices, environmental stewardship, fully subsidized healthcare, and elimination of soft money from political campaigns. If big corporations want to call my platform anti-business, who am I to stand in their way?

A freethinker engages in rational inquiry and speculation. A freethinker rejects dogma and is a constant skeptic who often engages in a pursuit of understanding through rational thought and exploration. If extraordinary claims get made, don't expect a freethinker to "automatically" accept it. There may be an "automatic" skeptical eye on certain claims, but many of them engage in rational thought rather than accepted dogma. Even when denouncing certain claims, a freethinker will often put them in piles of 'most improbable' as absolutes are, in principle, not testable for mortal humans. It's a form of adaptive thinking.

How can you firmly believe anything based on a LACK of evidence?

Perhaps I should have said "assume", or "operate under the assumption" rather than "firmly believe". Maybe the "firmly" part doesn't really do any work for us, since I also stipulated that the belief would change should some evidence come along. But it seems to me the default scientific position is to assume a phenomenon/entity does not exist if there is no evidence for it. It's the principle of parsimony: don't invent an explanation with more entities or parameters if one with fewer will do the job.

I guess I just wanted to distinguish the sort of position that I, and I believe people like Dawkins, hold from the one that simply says "I have no idea whether there's a god, so I won't take up any position -- if pressed I probably lean more toward no god." My position is stronger than that. I of course don't know whether there's a god, but I actually do take a firm position about how I interpret what I do know.

It seems to me that the sort of atheist that comes to that conclusion by using something like the scientific method is a proponent of "free thought". I'm all for that label, but it's more general than "atheist". A free thinker is someone who is open to all available evidence and lines of argument, to be judged on their own merits. An atheist is someone who believes/assumes/concludes there is no god. This is one particular conclusion that might be made through the freethinking stance.

Atheist = a statement about a particular belief

Freethinker = an overall philosophy about how beliefs and conclusions should be arrived at

Secular humanism, as I understand the term, is a particular set of principles about how society should be. It often is advocated by atheists, but one need not be an atheist to be a secular humanist. One could believe in some god but believe that god has no place influencing society. A deist could be a secular humanist, I should think.

"First of all, all sweeping generalizations are wrong."

Dmonfan, I'm glad you enjoyed my cute little paradox. I was worried it would be lost, buried as it was in a long comment.

the idea of dawkins scale seems reasonable to me. but what he calls "firmly believe" (and i think he has political/polemical reasons for using such terminology) i would call "it doesn't look to me like...". and again, believing something based on a LACK of evidence is just wrong, imo.

as far as ideas from the religious world automatically being rejected by "atheists" (tm), that don't involve speculation on the supernatural, i would start with ideas of right and wrong. you might say ideas of right and wrong did not originate in religious traditions, and you might indeed have a case. but the opposite case could also be made, and these origins go so far back in human history they are shrouded in mystery. one thing is for sure, though- man as a non- religious animal is a recent phenomenon.

so, it's one thing to reject the notion that homosexuality, for instance, is wrong because thats how it looks to you (the approach of the freethinker, who is also free to come to the opposite conclusion), and quite another to reject it simply because its a judgement by a non-existant god, or worse, because its the dogma of the day among the intellectual elite and you wouldn't want to be ostracized from this august company- both of which i see happening here quite frequently.

"A free thinker is someone who is open to all available evidence and lines of argument, to be judged on their own merits. An atheist is someone who believes/assumes/concludes there is no god. This is one particular conclusion that might be made through the freethinking stance."

exactly, and well put-as is the rest of your post.

"don't invent an explanation with more entities or parameters if one with fewer will do the job."

sorry, i just have to say this: an explanation for WHAT? it is that "what" that is considered by religious people as evidence of gods existence- namely, the organization and intricacy of the universe. NOT, as richard dawkins would have us believe, the organization and intricacy of biological organisms, but rather of the whole enchilada. i'm not saying that science doesn't provide compelling explanations, or that the religious ideas of the specifics of "gods" nature aren't unsupported by evidence. but it's the existence of the question itself that i find interesting. when i break it down, it seems to me that both the theory of "god" and the theory of evolution are telling us equally little about where all this comes from. and i don't discount the USEFULNESS of either. i'll admit, however, that scientific theories are less subject to abuse- slightly less.

when i break it down, it seems to me that both the theory of "god" and the theory of evolution are telling us equally little about where all this comes from. and i don't discount the USEFULNESS of either. i'll admit, however, that scientific theories are less subject to abuse- slightly less.

You use the term "theory" too loosely which only confuses the non-scientific people. You are comparing apple and oranges in that statement.

you might be right about that, dar, and that would make me a hypocrite, as loose usage of terms is something i bitch about pretty regularly here. thanks for going easy on me.

Hi again, jonathan,

I agree with you that the most fundamental question to be explained using some theory of metaphysics is in fact the whole delicious enchilada of the universe -- why is there anything? whence the laws of physics? etc.

Now one possibility is that everything was consciously created by a deity of some kind. However this only shifts the locus of explanation. It's a very old argument, but if the universe is this complex, surely an intelligent being that could create something like it would be even more complex. What created God?

So by "explaining" one phenomenon, we've merely created another one of at least comparable complexity.

A common objection to this argument is that, "God is something fundamentally different from the universe. God is eternal and was always there, and so does not need explanation"

Well, this is fine as far as it goes -- after all, we have to stop somewhere -- but why bother introducing God at all? Why not just say, "the universe itself is eternal, and was always there (in some form), and so does not need explanation (regarding its origin, that is)"? This is where parsimony comes in.

Again, an objection might be that "the universe is the kind of thing where we know things have causes, and so we need to step outside of this causal realm in order to posit that something was always there and is uncaused".

This is where the argument starts to get somewhat subtle and moves beyond obvious theological and anti-theological arguments that have existed for centuries.

My response would be that, perhaps in a purely Newtonian universe, where time and space are disconnected, we would expect the causal chain to keep going until some "first cause". But it doesn't seem implausible, given Einsteinian physics, that time isn't really a line when you get right down to it -- perhaps it's some sort of loop, or something like that. If this is the case, the concept of causality breaks down when you go back to a universe with a radically different distribution of mass.

Anyway. The point is, I feel justified (in the technical epistemological sense) in assuming there is no god, based on the lack of positive evidence, and because it doesn't grant any additional explanatory power. I much prefer to stay within the realm of scientific/rigorous philosophical explanation, absent any compelling reason to leave it.

I am surprised that more theists don't consider the universe is "god" to counter the argument of "god" and the universe having a separate origin.

Jonathan, thou with a sense of humor and a heart which beats...

If anyone can ever present to me a convincing reason to believe in God, I would welcome such a notion of having someone around who is the perfect arbiter for what is right and what is wrong.

Mike,

The notion that maybe God and the universe are really one and the same is indeed an interesting one. If that's the case, then at some level whether someone believes in "God" is merely an issue of semantics, assuming they believe the universe exists. At another level though, we have to parse what is entailed by saying that God really is the universe. It might not really entail much, in which case we're back to semantics. But if people want it to entail something like the universe having a purpose, or following some sort of plan, then we have to think harder.

It seems to me that something existing for a purpose implies that there is something outside of it based on which the purpose is defined. We can debate this -- I'd be interested to do so, in fact -- but conventionally when people say something like "I exist for a reason", they need to appeal to something outside of themselves in order to articulate the reason.

So I'm tempted to say that if God is the universe, and there's nothing else, then the universe can't really have a purpose. Similarly it can't be proceeding according to some plan, because then we'd need to identify where the plan came from.

There are "smaller" questions too, like "where did complex life come from?" Again, if God is just the universe, then the only available answers to this question must appeal exclusively to things inside the universe. This is precisely what evolution accomplishes.

Plenty of other questions that people appeal to theology in order to answer would proceed the same way. In summary, it seems to me that saying that God is the universe is fine as a matter of labelling, but in order to explain anything we still need to appeal to "natural" principles.

I'd be curious to hear what you all have to say about this though... I think it's a very interesting possibility.

M.Eileen, the label of Christian doesn't tell you more of a person's beliefs than the label of atheist. For example, someone calling themselves "Christian" in the U.S.A. might hold some outlandish belief that there is going to be something called "the Rapture" that is coming, despite there being any mention of any such thing in the Christian Holy Book. Or, they might not. They might believe that killing is a sin. Or they might not ("hooray for capital punishment," "hooray for war" types). "Atheists are not to be trusted" any more than any other person is not to be trusted. There are Jews I would trust, and those I would not. There are atheists I would trust, and those I would not. There are Christians I would trust, and those I would not. Your formula of not trusting atheists, apparently exclusively (sorry for the assumption), does not follow.

What someone calls themselves with respect to religion is often a very poor indicator of what they actually believe, and you would do well not to judge people by their religious labels.

Now, if you really want to know what people believe, ask them, "What do you believe?" Or better yet say, "Define to me your moral code, and be specific." Once they do that, you only need wonder if they were being honest (to you or to themselves) or not.

"Atheists are always smug, arrogant pricks, and this site only reinforces that."

While I (honestly) find that to be true of many anonymous posters on this site, I find that it is no more inherent to atheism or any other belief. I also (honestly) find that people making such attacks are more than likely to be experiencing psychological projection.

"a lobotomised tapworm on acid"

:D

I'll remember that one.

I am surprised that more theists don't consider the universe is "god" to counter the argument of "god" and the universe having a separate origin.

I assume because doing so would alter the definition and redefine God as every substance found in the universe. I think pantheists do this for purposes of achieving flowerly language. If one defines God as nature or the universe it only substitutes a religious word for a scientific one.

They should have asked people: "This coming election, you're going to have to vote for either a black person, a Hispanic, a trial lawyer, a woman, a Mormon, a really old guy, or a guy who moved his mistress into the Mayor's mansion while he was still married. You should actually feel lucky that there are no gays or atheists in the race. If you were forced to vote for one of these, which one would you pick?"

Maybe some of the sexists or racists would warm up to atheists if they were forced to choose.

"Maybe some of the sexists or racists would warm up to atheists if they were forced to choose."

now, there's a depressing thought. man, i can't believe some of these threads the last few days. is everyone taking smart pills or something? collin, in particular, is inspired lately. i'd vote for him if he were a black homosexual female jewish atheist in a second. as long as he wasn't a trial lawyer. i hate those fuckers. :)

jo ann writes:"I would welcome such a notion of having someone around who is the perfect arbiter for what is right and what is wrong."

so would i. i don't think that someone would be god, though. the words "right" and "wrong" are never used in the bible (o.t.-only testament:)) even in translation, as far as i know, and certainly not in hebrew. "pure" and "impure", yes, "holy" and "abomination", yes, even "good" and "evil". but not right and wrong. we're the ones who decide what's right and wrong.

or perhaps i'm splitting hairs here? sorry, it's what i do.:) so i'll have to retroactively change "right and wrong" in my earlier post to norm to " good and evil". which, of course, destroys my whole point. i'm just having a bad day. i'm totally intimidated, being surrounded by all these geniuses here, and i have to fall back on my little one trick pony thing of being able to read hebrew. please say this is enough to make me a valuable participant in the discussion! oh, woe is me...

Try Chech Republic.

Or just keep whining.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/009710.htm

Wow, this thread went on for quite a while after I ducked out in the First Act. I just wanted to add that I completely agree with Jonathan Becker's plug for "Freethinker". I think it is an idea that most modern individuals could get behind - religious or no. I think at our core, people want to find Truth. Sometimes we become afraid, which often leads to anger, we have to stop trying to rip each other apart.

I also wanted to add, that this quote was pretty damn funny:

"i'm totally intimidated, being surrounded by all these geniuses here, and i have to fall back on my little one trick pony thing of being able to read hebrew. please say this is enough to make me a valuable participant in the discussion! oh, woe is me..."

Thanks for the chuckle. Today's been a hell of a day, and it hit the spot.

By that do you mean 'love it or leave it' leogeo?

Tlaloc, you are in good company here as an atheistic Buddhist or a fo-jia who sees fo-xue (Budhhist teaching) instead of fo-jiao (Buddhist religion sect)

Buddha did not preach a religion, just a way of life, with no belief in God except a deep abiding belief or faith in the morally perfectible nature or goodness in a human’s soul.

You speak Southern Min or Min Nan hua? Wo-men-suan shi tong-xiang? If you don't mind me asking, are you from Fukien or Taiwan? < <

Chin, I also find “atheist” an insufficient term to describe my spiritual leanings. I prefer to use humanist philosopher to refer to myself, especially with my interest for Chinese philosophies and Christian Gnostic writings.

Hi all, this is by far the most interesting thread at this site.

Just a few comments.

People kept associating atheism as a set of beliefs, which is not correct as an atheist simply does not believe in god.

However I find this erroneous view refreshing because Christians in my country associate atheists with NO MORALS and NO VALUES to go with no Beliefs.

Thus although I disagree with Bongo’s view that atheism is a set of beliefs, I love what you wrote immediately after about an atheist: “Atheists are rational thinkers, and are usually more educated than non-Atheists. They are certainly far more intellectually curious... there's no point in having a brain and not using it. They are also generally more moral that their religious neighbors- it is impossible for a religious person to do a genuinely selfless thing, for they are always aware that they are being watched and judged by God…”

That’s me to a T. People like me and other atheists will always get on the wrong side of the holier than thou people, especially when atheists like us act and behave in a far more holier fashion.

M. Eileen, I agree with most of your sentiments on the uselessness of the atheist term. < <

========================

I find it odd that your polling system only mentions issues of race, religion and sexual inclination.

What about knowledge, qualifications and more importantly a conviction in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that makes America America?

Doug raise a good point when he said: “I can imagine that people like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and JFK would never get elected today. None of them liked church and JFK was the only really religious person out of the bunch but he despised the fact that he'd have to attend mass because of his presidency.”

I don't get this. If the person is well qualified by your standards, then doesn't that mean you generally agree with their approach, so then what difference does it make WHAT they are? And why are people so scared of women?