Atheists Are Still the Most Unelectable Group in America

Gallup has released the results of their not-quite-annual poll asking people the following question:

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be ________, would you vote for that person?

Obviously, most of the discussion in the media will revolve around the results for “Mormon” — 80% of Americans could see themselves voting for a Mormon. 18% say they wouldn’t.

But it looks like, once again, atheists are at the bottom of the list.

Only 54% of Americans would vote for us… 43% would not. Not that we want to see low numbers in any of the other categories, but gays/lesbians and Muslims have a better rating than we do.

I suppose we can be thrilled that, for the first time, more than half the country would theoretically vote for us…

I feel the same way.

Notwithstanding the Mormon trend, Gallup’s history on this question shows growing acceptance for all other types of candidates over time. That includes atheists, whose acceptability as candidates surpassed 50% for the first time last summer but have typically ranked at the bottom of the list whenever the question has been asked.

There actually is some good news for us. The percentage of people who say they would vote for an atheist has been going up over the years… it’s still low, but not as low as it used to be:

The only group whose approval-levels have changed less than ours is “Catholic”… but they were at a much higher percentage than us to begin with and now have near-universal approval.

Also in the Gallup poll: More Democrats (58%) than Republicans (48%) would vote for an atheist presidential candidate from their own party.

And the Millennials are our greatest allies — 70% of people 18-29 would support an atheist:

While one might think the best way to fix this is to *have* an atheist candidate people could vote for — letting America know that we’re patriotic and worth supporting — Gallup suggests otherwise:

Americans’ willingness to vote for a Mormon is not significantly greater now than in the past. That suggests that it may take more than simply having a prominent future candidate who is gay, Muslim, or an atheist to bring Americans’ acceptance of candidates from those backgrounds up to near-unanimous levels.

Does anyone believe the percentage of people willing to vote for an (openly) atheist presidential candidate will ever hit the 90s?

(Image via Shutterstock)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://twitter.com/JakCharlton Jak Charlton

    I find it endlessly amusing that people would prefer to vote for someone else who has an imaginary friend, even if the other imaginary friend is a different imaginary friend, even one who violently disagrees with their imaginary friend

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=513566395 Jackie McClanahan

      Yep. I’ve been told that I should not have an opinion because the fact I lack any faith whatsoever corrupts society as a whole more than just having faith in something different that what they have faith in.

    • EivindKjorstad

       I think it makes perfect sense. For atleast two reasons. First, when it comes to public policy, most major religions in USA agree on many policies. They think special tax-excemptions for churches are fine. They welcome traditional gender-roles. They are skeptical of homosexual rights. They are sex-negative. They want discrimination based on religion to be legal. They dislike abortion and in some cases even contraceptives. They are skeptical of certain lines of research, especially in biology and medicine.  They oppose equal rights for women. (in practice they do, despite claiming not to)

      Second, it’s clear that the major threat to religion today is not other religions, but instead no religion at all. It’s not very common that someone converts from Christianity to Islam or Hinduism, but it’s fairly common that people convert from any of those to atheism.

      • Rennie

        There is an rather interesting pattern to conversion that is pretty consistent though certainly not universal. Theists who become atheists usually do so because they got angry at God or religion. Atheists who become theists usually do so because they felt empty and went looking for what was missing.

        • JohnnieCanuck

          I used to accept that there was a God. I’ve never felt anger towards it. Why would I? They told me he was the good guy and I believed them, until I stopped believing them. After that, I could hardly be angry at a figment of the imagination, now could I?

          I didn’t leave religion because I was angry at it, but because it became irrelevant.

          On the other hand I am angry at people that are inspired by their religion to be misogynists, homophobes and anti-evolution. Likewise at people who hide and abet pedophiles because they need to protect the reputation of their religion more than they need to protect children.

          Based on the many anecdotes I’ve read from the deconverted, anger is seldom their motivation.

          What you are presenting is much more the explanation offered by theists to describe a deconversion. It’s a kind of spin doctoring, claiming that the atheist is really just pretending God doesn’t exist in order  to spite Him. They further suppose that the atheist is reacting (poorly) to a loss or injury to his/her self or a loved one.

          They also like to trot out the idea that atheism is what you embrace when you want to act immorally, but that’s separate from this anger hypothesis.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          Citation please, because that doesn’t describe me, or any atheists I know.  And since I don’t think you have much experience with becoming an atheist, I think you’re making shit up.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

          Show me this pattern. I’m not seeing it.
          I became an atheist because a literal Bible made no sense, I had never seen any proof for God, and logic won over. I am no more angry at God than you are angry at Zeus.
          I get angry at the followers of gods, not the imaginary gods they worship.

        • amycas

           Every time you start talking about atheists (what they “really” believe, why they became atheists) you just look more and more ignorant. Keep talking. I’ll get the popcorn.

        • Au_catboy

           There is a very interesting pattern to religious apologists.  Every single one of them is a pathological liar without the slightest shred of basic human decency.  The fact that the only way theists can defend their beliefs is through blatant, shameless lying is just one more of countless reasons religion is a load of worthless bullshit.

        • Dkatz1007

          Sometimes it’s the other way around. Like a more adult look at the world in which we live in. Religion is obviously for the weak minded. I mean really… adult magic. You can’t be grown up and religious. I’m only 16 and I stopped believing in magic long ago. Supernatural entity and likewise.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I think we should celebrate the fact that we cracked 50%.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVXR0AKyxA4 

  • gski

    I would like to see these numbers for those places that have elected an atheist.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      I would like to see these numbers for those placesthat place that havehas elected an atheist.

      Or did you mean outside the US?

      • Deven Kale

         Try the “s” tag, for strikeout. It may serve your purpose just as well. ;)

      • Drew M.

         I would’ve known!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

      Only one of them currently, and he’s in trouble in the November election.

      • gski

         I was thinking state and local also.

  • matt in memphis

    I find it completely amazing, considering the disturbing results of these surveys regarding public opinion towards atheists, that so many people have the nerve to suggest that atheist activism and public awareness efforts are unnecessary or unjustified.  That said, I am happy that the problem appears to be improving!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

    Hey, we broke 50 percent…that’s enough to get elected…

    • TiltedHorizon

       Beat me to it.

  • Rennie

    Well, get a clue. No one wants another Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, or Stalin running the country. I’ll take a materially corrupt candidate who mainly wants to pick my pocket over one who can slit my throat, literally, without losing sleep over it.

    People don’t trust your moral compasses because they have no basis other than self interest, even if that looks largely benign. It’s much easier to become a dictator when you don’t see yourself as ultimatelyanswerable to anyone.

    • TheAnalogKid

      Eat shit.

      • Rennie

        I couldn’t have illustrated my point any better. Thanks!

        • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

          Well, no. Your point was…pointless. Your argument is based on a fallacy, the same as your belief in a thunderous sky daddy.

          Don’t be surprised if atheists tell you to go fuck yourself when you utterly misrepresent them with your stable of straw men.

          Oh hell, just for the sake of being a completist: go fuck yourself.

        • TheAnalogKid

          Your point is you’re an asshole.

        • Burt Likko

          You know, there’s a valuable lesson here for all of us. That lesson is, “Don’t be a dick.” That Rennie is a dick was obvious right from the start. But when the non-religious started being dicks back to him, he’d got what he wanted.

          Try not to wrestle with the pig. Even if you win, the pig still enjoyed the fight and you get mud all over you.

          • TheAnalogKid

            I like wrestling with the pig. 

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        I think part of the problem is that we’re not imaginative enough in our insults.  Take, for example:

        Dr. Dawkins,
        Fuck you, u fucking fucker. What will u think when u are being basted in the broth of God’s righteous indignation? I look forward to observing from my post in heaven the exquisite tortures u will suffer at the hands of the just and loving God Whom u have rejected, u fuckity fucker.
        God bless, RB

        http://richarddawkins.net/letters/ugly 

        • TheAnalogKid

          I can be much more imaginative, but I was attempting to be friendly.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      That’s why there have been so few religious dictators.
      Hitler
      Gaddafi
      Amin
      Mugabe
      Henry VIII

      • TheAnalogKid

        And Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jung Il, they made a religion of themselves.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          I don’t know Pol Pot and Mao well enough.  And Stalin I’d argue made a religion out of Lenin, but that’s a very minor nit.

          But Kim Jung Whatever- geez, when the official leader of your country is the dead grandfather- wow.  Atheism that is not.

          • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

            Pol Pot did believe in the supernatural, so he’s hardly in the rationalist camp.

            “Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler.” – Prince Norodom Sihanouk

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=513566395 Jackie McClanahan

      Which is why there are far more atheists in jail than the religious. Oh, wait…

      • Rennie

        Perhaps what you lack in volume you make up for in intensity. See above.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

          More likely we make up for it in morality–something believers seem to have a harder time with.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            To be fair, all people, atheists and otherwise, I think have a hard time putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes.  I struggle with keep in mind that some Christians really and truly saddened by the idea that someone will burn in hell forever.

            And some Christians have a hard time with the idea that since they need a celestial dictator to keep them in line, that everyone else does as well.  What’s kind of funny is that they often talk of ‘freedom’ and ‘free will’, but seem terrified by actual freedom, and actual responsibility.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

              “To be fair, all people, atheists and otherwise, I think have a hard time putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes.”

              I’ve often felt that we tend to see others as we see ourselves, to reverse Robert Burns.  Atheists see believers as folks who can be reasoned with if you find the right argument.  Believers see atheists as untrustworthy folks who are one whim away from mass murder.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I’m sorry, whose currently turning the country into a shithole? And in whose name? Not the Atheists. 

    • TiltedHorizon

       Well, when mockery and denigration of others is all you have going for
      you I guess you have to use what you’ve got. Good luck with that. There is a reason the saying ‘Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind’ has been often quoted.

      • Rennie

        Just meeting you on your own ground. I could have replied like TheAnalKid just above or the other names I’ve been called on here but I’m not willing to stoop that low.

        • TiltedHorizon

          How low are you willing to stoop then?

          • Rennie

            Take a look at what I’ve been called above. You should be asking them that question. Does it make you proud to be linked with the likes of people who have nothing better to say than that?

            There is enough of this kind of crap and worse associated with atheists all over the internet. I simply poked a stick in the cage to get a reaction to make my point about why people perceive you have no morals and why you have such a poor showing in the polls.

            Case closed. It was too easy…

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              So because you are able to provoke an angry reaction from someone you think that makes your case?

              I’d say quite the opposite.  The fact that you are able to taunt a (ex?) US Marine into returning your insult says more about your lack of worth than ours.

              You’ve seen the joke about ‘militant’?
              http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-glQwEV3ZM_4/ToeJWjWXrDI/AAAAAAAAAs0/le8Uu1tkq3c/s1600/Militant+Atheist..JPG 

              You know, sometimes when people are angry, it’s because they actually have a reason to be angry

              • Rennie

                Well, she’s angry all right but whether it’s all reasonable or even true is probably debatable.

                There are plenty of believers in this country who are angry that atheists are so easily angered and offended at the word Christmas that schools have to call it Winter Break now while the hypocrite atheists accept the paid Christmas holiday at work.

                There are plenty of believers who are angry and annoyed that tax dollars are spent to hear court cases from atheists like Newdow who want to remove the word God from the P of A simply because it offends them and gives their kid PTSD or something. Isn’t forcing one’s beliefs on others one of those big complaints we hear atheists make about religionists all the time?

                I could go on endlessly but you all know the list and unlike Greta I’m not that angry.

                • http://www.facebook.com/brian.westley Brian Westley

                  “There are plenty of believers who are angry and annoyed that tax dollars are spent to hear court cases from atheists like Newdow who want to remove the word God from the P of A simply because it offends them”

                  Of course you’d have to expose yourself eventually as being an ignorant prat; if you’d bother to read the actual lawsuits, you’d see that “offensiveness” is not part of it.

                  But you obviously are only here to insult atheists, so fuck off.

                • Rennie

                  First of all you edited my comment without noting your exclusion.

                  Secondly, you think he didn’t do it because he’s was offended? What, was he happy about ‘under God’ and was just being masochistic? GMAB

                • http://www.facebook.com/brian.westley Brian Westley

                  “First of all you edited my comment without noting your exclusion.”

                  Too fucking bad, moron.  People can read your tripe just above my comment, or didn’t you think of that, genius?

                  “Secondly, you think he didn’t do it because he’s was offended?”

                  Wow, you really ARE too stupid to argue with; I told you to 1) READ the lawsuit, and 2) fuck off.  You have done neither.

                  Now, I realize you still won’t understand what I’m talking about, since, in your tiny mind, people can only be “offended” or “happy.”  But that’s your problem for being so stupid.

                • Rennie

                  I guess you wanted to forget the part about Newdow claiming his child was being harmed because of being exposed to the word God since it didn’t fit your point.

                  His ex-wife thought he was the one who was harmful and she should know.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  ‘Harm’ is a legal term.And the courts declined to rule on it, finding instead that he didn’thave standing to bring the suit in the first place.

                • TheAnalogKid

                  If the Pledge originally had “under god” in it, instead of being added because of anti-communist hysteria, maybe it wouldn’t be such a problem. 

                  And “hypocrite atheists accept the paid Christmas holiday at work”? That makes as much sense as “if man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys”?

                • Rennie

                  It’s a good thing your handle isn’t the analogy kid or I’d have to ridicule you.

                • TheAnalogKid

                  Oooops. I forgot. Eat shit.

                • Deven Kale

                  There are plenty of believers in this country who are angry that
                  atheists are so easily angered and offended at the word Christmas…

                  Actually, that’s mostly Jews that got upset about the focus on Christmas and had it changed to Winter Break and insisted stores and governments say “Happy Holidays.” Most atheists celebrate Christmas and have no problem with it. It’s a great celebration of Capitalism and an awesome time to gather with and appreciate family and friends by spending time with them and showing your appreciation in various ways.

                • Rennie

                  I only found one instance in which Jews were involved – in Bakersfield. They objected in response to a school board changing the name from winter and spring break to christmas and easter break. Had the name always been christmas and easter break they probably wouldn’t have bothered.

                  Totally different situation but nice attempt at propaganda.

                • Deven Kale

                   Well, if you’re looking for lawsuits, I’m surprised you found any at all. What I’m talking about is simply people who are Jewish saying “I don’t celebrate Christmas, I’m Jewish,” when being told Merry Christmas. Yes, maybe there are atheists who get upset as well, but the main reason people in stores and governments say “Happy Holidays” is not because of lawsuits (or fear of lawsuits, as you imply), but because they’re trying to be inclusive of all religions. There are far more Jews in this country than other non-Christians or atheists (to my knowledge, at least), so I believe they’re the ones on the front of peoples minds when saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Atheists are probably not even on their minds at all, or if they are it’s because somebody erroneously told them we atheists pressured them into it somehow.

                • Rennie

                  I’m not sure why your focus is on holiday greetings when I was talking about atheists forcing formal changes to public school policy. Are you trying to minimize this? Are you clueless as to how this harmed a lot of students who got caught up in the  gratuitous and devisive political activity of a few busybodies who didn’t give a shit about the effect on the kids in the schools. It was done just to satisfy the egos of a few people who weren’t even being harmed. The anger was justified.

                • Deven Kale

                  I’m not trying to minimize anything at all. You made a statement which I knew was incorrect, so I gave you the correct information. That’s really all there is to it.

                • Rennie

                  Except your information wasnt correct waswascorrect was it Devan

                • Occam

                  I have to take issue with the way Rennie characterizes atheists regarding the Christmas/Winter Holiday issue.  That whole issue was blown completely out or proportion by the right wingers (Limbaugh, Fox News), to the point where now it becomes a political statement whether you say either “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays.”  I have never met an atheist who was truly “offended” by the phrase “Merry Christmas,”  and I still use it myself (just as I would wish a Jewish person “Happy Hanukkah”). The thing about “Happy Holidays” is that it is an inclusive phrase, and does not make presumptions about the person you are saying it to (of course, if that person happens to be a thin-skinned Christian, he/she will interpret the greeting as an affront to his/her religion — which it is clearly *not*). 

                  As for being offended by overt public displays of religion, I think that may not necessarily be the appropriate word in this context.  I suppose some people might be offended, but I would characterize my own response as being “uncomfortable” rather than offended.  I know this is very difficult for many religious people to sympathize with, and maybe you think we are being “too sensitive”; but do me a favor and imagine the following scenario:

                  You’re at a basketball game at your child’s public school. In large letters above the basketball court is a verse from the Koran.  The referee flips a coin, which has the inscription “In Allah We Trust.” Before the game begins, everybody says the flag salute, which includes the line “One Nation, under Islam.”

                  Now answer honestly: would that make you uncomfortable in any way?  Well that’s how an atheist feels every time we are confronted with public displays of religion — which are everywhere, and mostly taken for granted by the Christian majority.

                • Rennie

                  If I lived in a country (or my child attended a school) that had a different majority religion than my own I would accept it as a matter of course even if it rankled.  I tend not to be so worried about my personal issues that I have to go around forcing others to change to make me comfortable.

                  Now consider how uncomfortable it makes many parents to have minority alternative lifestyles forced on their very young children in public school before the parents are ready to educate them about it. All because a gay or lesbian wants to be out about their lifestyle and we wouldn’t want them to be ‘uncomfortable’ holding all that back from their little pupils would we?

                  We all have to put up with shit we don’t like because we don’t live on private islands.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  LOL, oh dear.  alternative lifestyles.  Yes, like gay-driving and gay-shopping and gay-breathing!

                  You know what else bugs me?  All those women who drive!  Shudder but, I am a minority in thinking women shouldn’t drive, so I have to put up with it.

                  Now, where are my pearls?

                • Rennie

                  Yes, call us crazy because we want to be able to teach our children about normal sexuality – when WE decide it’s time – before we have to tell them about the dark side.

                  Oh, I bet that comment would get me arrested in Quebec.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  I wish I could put off teaching my kid about religious people, but I know I can’t.  I tried to explain God to him, and he said “kind of like a superhero?”  “Yes” I said, “But the thing is, a lot of people- most people really believe in him.” 

                  “But that’s just stupid!” he replied.

                  And I know being a small minority in a large majority he’s not going to be able to make it by telling people to “eat shit”.  So I have to somehow explain to a five year old the nuance of sticking up for yourself but also being pragmatic about making it through the day.

                  So, if your kid knowing that gay people exist is anything like my kid knowing that adults believe in fairy tales, then I hear ya.

                • amycas

                   Homosexuality is part of “normal sexuality”

                • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

                  There are children of gay and lesbian parents in public schools. I was one of them. Conservative heterosexuals do not own the public schools. No one does. They are for all children, from all backgrounds, from all families. You expect children like I was to hide in the closet, to have teachers never acknowledge their families? All because your holy book says gay people are icky? It’s not the public school’s job to cater to your religious prejudices. Public schools have no business making LGBT students or students from LGBT feel unwelcome, stigmatized and ignored simply because your religion says they should be.

                • Baby_Raptor

                  “There are plenty of believers who are angry and annoyed that tax dollars are spent to hear court cases from atheists like Newdow who want to remove the word Celestia from the P of A simply because it offends them”
                  Are you aware that the word God wasn’t even in the pledge originally? 

                  And how is removing one reference to God “forcing” the lack of belief of God on everyone? 

                  Lastly, it’s not about offense. It’s about the Atheists’ freedom of worship being respected as well…Something you lot seem to have a huge issue with.

                • Baby_Raptor

                  Also, ”
                  There are plenty of believers in this country who are angry that atheists are so easily angered and offended at the word Christmas that schools have to call it Winter Break now while the hypocrite atheists accept the paid Christmas holiday at work.”

                  Christmas was one of may holidays that Christianity ripped off from Pagans. It’s not YOUR holiday. And I’m really sorry that the fact that there are people that aren’t Christians others you, but the world doesn’t revolve around you guys. Maybe if you accepted that, and stopped getting your Fucking panties in  a knot every time someone challenges your privledge in the name of having their rights protected, you’d be a happier and less bitter person. 

            • TiltedHorizon

              Morality is predicated on accountability, as you are sidestepping my question, you must feel justified in slandering me because of what someone else called you. What should I assume of your morality? If faith cannot elevate you above what I am as an atheist already capable of then what good was it?

              • Rennie

                You lost me. You’ll need to clarify what question and what slander.

            • Occam

              Indeed, Rennie — there are a fair number of ugly comments coming from some of the atheists on this forum (and other forums as well), I’ll grant you that.  But that’s human nature, and is neither a religious or non-religious issue.  To pretend that the religious folks aren’t capable of equally repugnant comments is being disingenuous.  In fact, I always find it amusing reading such comments from the self-proclaimed “loving” Christians, who are capable of some pretty hair-curling epithets.  (Plus they always have the threat of eternal hell-fire to lord over the non-believers.)

              • Rennie

                Human nature is a poor excuse for what has been posted AND allowed to stand on this blog. Are you saying you aren’t able to rise above it? Many of you have made my point better than I could have. I challenge you to go to any of the christian blogs on Patheos and find comments with the kind of insults that are on just this one thread.

                • Deven Kale

                  see here and here.

                • Rennie

                  You expect me to read through over 1000 comments to find what you are referring too?!!!

                • http://www.facebook.com/brian.westley Brian Westley

                  I expect you to fuck off, moron.

                • Au_catboy

                   No, Rennie, no one here honestly expects you to even know how to read. 

                • Rennie

                  Given the topic matter I’m pretty sure it was the catholics being attacked not the other way around.

                • Bergn

                  So when Catholics act like jerks it’s ok because they’re being attacked? So what do you call coming onto this forum and calling us selfish and immoral? By your own standards, we should be excused for our behavior. We were attacked.

                • Rennie

                  Uh, no. The nasty comments were probably coming from the defenders of abortion  and were directed at the catholics. Since Deven didn’t bother to back up his claim that is what I assume.

                  If tempers got hot I can understand – it’s an emotional topic. But I’ve been on enough of those blogs that I  seriously doubt you would ever find the kind of language or insults coming from the catholics like I’ve seen from y’all on here.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  “Evil little thing” ring any bells?

                • amycas

                   The only thing I’ve seen is one person telling you to “eat shit”, as well as multiple comments after that chastising the person for teling you to eat shit.

                • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

                  Given that about three quarters of the US populace identifies as Christian, I think it’s safe to say that many Christians engage in a lot of “soiled speech”in my country as well.  I seem to remember my Christian father, siblings, and peers having a lot of inflammatory words for those they have disliked.  In fact, many of my family members and peers from my home town were rather rabid racists, too.  A fine group of people… and the majority of them were Christians.

                  Christianity has plenty of assholes.

                  Atheism has plenty of assholes.

                  The human race has plenty of assholes.

                  I wonder about folks living in other star systems… hmmmm.  Time and space travel will tell.

                • Au_catboy

                   So long as your cult’s official dogma demands the unending torture of the innocent at the hands of your monstrous imaginary friend, and so long as your fellow cultists gleefully advocate the rape, murder, and torture of nonbelievers, your whining about being insulted only makes it obvious that you are a lazy, lying, stupid coward. 

                  Here’s how your cult responds to a teenage girl who had the audacity to ask that you obey the law.  You don’t get to whine about atheists being rude, when you’re here lying in defense of a cult of rapists and terrorists:
                  http://practicaldoubt.com/2012/01/13/why-christians-want-plaintiffs-identities-revealed-the-ahlquist-effect/

            • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

              A few atheists called you names on the Internet.  Meanwhile atheists routinely get death threats whenever they put up a billboard/sign, or ask that their Constitutional rights be respected.  Funny, but I can’t find any pity for you. 

            • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

              Honestly, grow up. You’re on the internet. If you go somewhere where you’re the minority opinion, you’re going to be insulted. I used to be a Christian and I would talk to atheists online and some people were rude and others were perfectly pleasant. As an atheist, I talk to Christians online and it’s exactly the same. Some are rude and some are pleasant.
              Some people are nice, some people aren’t, and pretty much anyone on the internet is willing to insult you if you provoke them.
              So when you tell someone you don’t know that they obviously have no moral compass and would easily kill without a second thought, don’t be surprised if they tell you to eat shit. Do you poke at a bees nest and then get mad when they sting you?
              Get over it.

              • Rennie

                There sure are a lot of thin skinned folks on this blog. I could probably say hypocrites too.

                I would bet that most of those who posted the insults have even posted
                something to the effect at one time or another that religion is
                dangerous and is responsible for most of the violence in the world.
                Granted some muslims are doing their best to make that true. But when
                you point out the real mass murderers of history atheist communists have
                it hands down. Mao and Stalin make those who have killed in the name of
                religion look like novices. Even worse, they did it to their own people for no damn reason at all except their own selfish ends.

                That is a reality that colors people’s perception of atheists like it or not. Learn from it or not.

                • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

                  I’d say that countries and cultures with great military power at their disposal have probably created more carnage than any other assortment of people across history.  Most of those happened to be believe in supernatural forces because the lion’s share of humanity has done so across the ages.  A few of those countries and cultures have happened to have been atheist because atheism has been a minority position across history.

                  I think this article does a good job of dealing with the notion that religion causes violence.

                  Again, in keeping with my “assholes” comment above, I think people, regardless of spiritual philosophy, are perfectly capable of committing terrible acts on both a collective and individual level.  How much damage they can create is directly proportional to how much resources and power they have at their disposal.

                • TheAnalogKid

                  Yeah, fuck that genocide in the Bible. God wanted that shit so that makes it okay.

                • Occam

                  The whole “Mao/Stalin/Pol Pot were atheist mass murders” retort is such a tired straw man from religious apologists.  Those genocidal maniacs didn’t carry out their heinous acts in the name of Atheism (as if it were some religion); the reason they outlawed religion in their respective societies was because it undermined their own Cults of Personality, their own dictatorial authority.  THEY were the gods of their own personal religions — and as such, could not tolerate competition from any other gods.  In contrast, consider the religious dictators who carry out their heinous acts *in the name of* God or Allah.  This may seem a subtle distinction to the religious apologists, but it is very real, and significant.  And it’s not just “some muslims” who are guilty, as you point out: the Catholic Church has a pretty checkered past when it comes to crimes against humanity, going back well over a thousand years. 

                • Rennie

                  We’re tired of your tired strawmen too, like your bible scholarship.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alisa-Penmane/100003908887828 Alisa Penmane

                  Rennie, sweety, did you decide to overlook the 1000 years of religious intolerance known as “the Dark Ages?” 

                  Also, I think you are neglecting the murderous actions of the Christians in modern times.  The internet has that information, too.  It’s not our job to find it for you.

                  If you believe that our names are associated with those of the “atheist” murderers that you listed, please remember that your name is associated with the negative actions of Christianity.  Also, using the same (faulty) logic, we could assume that you support slavery, are discriminatory toward gays, support the torture of adulterers, allow the killing of daughters who talk back to their parents.

                  PS:  Here’s a helpful hint… go look for the percentage of the population in Jail that is atheist, versus the normal population and then determine if your original argument holds any water.  Or… maybe blame our justice system for being intolerant of Christians.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alisa-Penmane/100003908887828 Alisa Penmane

                  I also wanted to remind you that “European Christians committed the largest genocide in human history
                  against Native Americans. They justified this genocide by claiming the
                  Native Americans were godless heathens and deserved to die.” – thume516 on http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120502164432AAd2h16

                • Rennie

                  When you find a strong enough association between factors you can conclude cause and effect.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  So when some (not all) genocidal tyrants are atheists, that’s cause and effect.  But when most murders are religious that’s a strawman.  Yes?

                • Dime

                  Correlation does not equal causation. Can you direct me to any studies that demonstrate that atheism is what led to the authoritarian atrocities you describe? Do you think it’s possible that authoritarianism may produce an atheist leader, but not the other way around?

                  Also, 
                  Jens Stoltenberg (Prime Minister of Norway) and Fredrik Reinfeldt (Prime Minister of Sweden) are atheist leaders who haven’t committed atrocities. How do you account for these outliers?

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              Listen very carefully: you don’t get to take the moral high ground when you come in denigrating a whole group of people (especially one that is highly diverse) and then say that the strong reaction to your incendiary comments is evidence of moral failings of said group. If you have to do such a thing to make your point, then your point was false to begin with.

            • BlasphemousKansan

              So, ok, Rennie, let me get this straight.  Your genius idea was to come in here and show that atheists are big old meanies.  To do that, you decided the best way to go about it was to equate all atheists to Hitler and Pol-Pot, and then when atheists get mad, your point is proven, somehow?  I wonder how much of an authority you are to judge other’s morals when you seemed to have missed the part where calling your opponents Hitler and insuating that any of us could slit a child’s throat without losing sleep is kind of a douche move.  In fact, it’s downright immoral. 

              By your own admission, you came in here to poke the nest to try to get a reaction.  An accomplished troll such as yourself could accomplish that on probably any forum, on any topic, so the fact that you managed to do it here by insinuating that we are murderers with no conscience is hardly an indictment of atheism.  Rather, it’s an indicator of your own douchiness.  You did not come here to have a discussion, you did not come here to address morality in any way, you came here to piss people off and now you’re clutching your pearls when people call you meany names in return. 

              Theanalogkid put it best: your only point is that you’re an asshole.  If this dialogue counts as a victory in your sad world, I’m willing to let you and your bizarre little ego have it, as you probably don’t have many other sources of happiness in your life.

              Try to have a nice day!

            • Baby_Raptor

              You asked for a specific reaction. You got it. That might prove your point in your mind, but that’s not reality. That’s just us giving you what you asked for. 

              Go be superior somewhere else. You’re not wanted here. 

    • Bergn

      If you look down one article you’ll see the drilling rig atheists donated to Ethiopians to help get them water. I’m guessing that’s just an atheist plot to get people to trust them? 

    • Grinch

      I’ve read all of your comments so far..

      You sound like a sad, scared, and petty person to be honest. I don’t waste my time trying to argue with people like yourself because you have staked your entire personality and life on being that sad, scared, and petty person. I do, however, encourage you to walk a mile in another person’s shoes, as the saying goes. :) Instead of coming in here, guns blazing and thinking that you are going to prove a point, why don’t you stay awhile, ask questions, truthfully answer questions, and get to know the very people you are demonizing? You might find that although you disagree, we are not the monsters you make us out to be and you might even gain insight into why we are opposed to certain things. :) 

      However, when you come here flinging insults, it is nonsensical to try and play the victim later when you get as good as you give. Give that crap up, nobody likes someone who cries wolf like that. There would have been a different response had you approached it in a way that was curious, instead of trying to dehumanize a group of people that you have no understanding of. 

      • Occam

        I may not agree with all of the rhetoric used by my fellow atheists on this forum, but I can certainly understand their expressions of indignation… and I can appreciate the volatile responses of the opposing pro-religion side as well.  I think we would all do better to rise above the insults, but as I said in an earlier post, it’s human nature for people to lose it once in a while.

        What I find tiresome about Rennie’s posts are his flimsy claims and weak responses to others; he’d rather hunker down with his straw men and cherry-picked “facts” than to engage in an honest discussion.  He has also more than once tipped his hand to show that deep inside, he is a bigot who feels threatened by some imaginary “agenda” from those he doesn’t like or agree with.  I have yet to see him make a reasonable argument in this entire forum — so like Grinch, I will no longer waste my time arguing with him.  Somebody else can futilely bang his/her head against the wall for a while. 

        OK, Rennie, now it’s your turn to provide one of your predictably feeble responses to this post….

    • Marco Conti

      Rennie, I don’t think I have to list the historical figures that have committed atrocities in the name of religion, do I? It’s a long list and a very varied one. 

      But the issue is that you know that already. You must. If you do not know that there have been far more dictators and despots of the religious persuasion than atheist ones (and, by the way, every single one of the people you mentioned, created a cult of personality tailored on the best theocracies have to offer), then you are an imbecile. 

      If you are aware and still make such a silly argument then it means that you are a world class troll. 
      So which is it? Imbecile or malicious troll? 

      As far as “self interest”, please check the many atheist charities. This site alone runs a charity donation at least once a month. I personally donate between 5 and 10% of my income to various organizations, even religious ones as long as they don’t proselytize.

      You blame us for lacking a moral compass, but if your post is any evidence of your own morals, you are not such a shiny example, are you? People like you are selfish, unimaginative, obtuse and self serving. How do I know? Because I met many like you. I heard the same arguments out of their mouths and then I got to see how they live their lives.

      On second thought, “eat shit” is probably the only concept you have enough brains to understand and it sums it up pretty well. i shouldn’t have wasted my time

    • Baby_Raptor

      You have issues, dude. Get help for them. 

      And while you’re at it, get a Fucking clue. You have no idea what you’re talking about. 

    • Au_catboy

       Every time christians pull this bullshit, they are admitting that their faith cannot survive by any means other than slandering or murdering anyone who dares question their lies.  Rennie, you are a lying sack of shit and a Nazi.  Fuck off.

  • Jake

    Honest question here: Can you honestly expect the number of people willing to vote for an atheist to rise when a lot of the atheist activism (billboards, holiday signs, and so on) are meant to be intentionally insulting towards those of religion?

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      How many people in the United States have ever seen an atheist billboard? They’re extremely rare, so rare that it seems unlikely they would have much of an effect on polling. Also, please note: there were no billboards or holiday signs even 10 years ago, so they do not account for atheists’ low popularity over the past several decades. 

      Also, I would disagree that most (or even a lot) are meant to be “intentionally insulting.” I think they are perceived that way because of the double standard surrounding religion in our country. Christians can express their beliefs on billboards, and no one complains even when their messages are insulting towards people of other beliefs, ie: “Jesus is the only way!”, “Hell is real!” etc.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

      Since our numbers ARE rising, maybe we’re on the right track.

    • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

      Those billboards are only insulting to those who utterly refuse to engage the rational parts of their brains. And of those, I’d suggest very very few would be worth convincing anyway.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

        What they do is convince other freethinkers to be open and honest–”hey, if they can put up a billboard I can let my co-workers know I’m atheist.”

        The thing which helps our numbers MOST is when people personally KNOW someone who’s out & atheist, and can say “hey, if Joe who helped me last week when I needed a ride to the garage is an atheist, maybe they’re not so bad after all.”

    • TheAnalogKid

      Yeah, like always hearing about what a sinner you are and how you’re going to Hell if you don’t believe what I believe.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      I’m not sure what the alternate would be.  Certainly there are varying degrees, and some of the signs are more pushy than others.  But if you don’t stick up for yourself, nothing is going to change.  I’d say it’s probably at least 90% perception (since people aren’t used to considering atheist opinions, any atheist opinion is going to come off as out of place and ‘intentionally insulting’.  And < 10% actually insulting.  People protest when we have billboards that simply advertise our existence to other atheists.

    • TiltedHorizon

       There has been some activism which I find to be distasteful and willfully offensive. I can certainly understand the negativity those created. The problem is, it seems, ALL atheist activism is offensive. To give credence to this perception an atheist group designed a billboard with just one word: “Atheist.” All attempts to have this billboard placed around the city were denied for being confrontational.

      So my question to you, honestly, if a simple word, “Atheist”, is offensive then what activism won’t offend?

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

      So we shouldn’t vote for a Christian candidate because of all the offensive Christian billboards, church signs, mailings, etc?   A small sampling:
      http://v.gd/4TuZEQ

    • ortcutt

       Did you read the article or not?  The number of people willing to vote for an atheist is RISING.  Also, 70% of 18-29 year olds are willing to vote for an atheist.  As the old folks die out of the population, the figure of people willing to vote for an atheist will continue to rise.  So, I see no basis for your claim that vocal atheism is having a negative effect.  If you have some evidence, please go ahead and present it.

      • mecurian_china

        While that might prove that younger voters are more likely to vote for atheists – it does not mean they will keep this attitude later in life. From my own experience I find that as people get older they tend to become more conservative and more religious in their outlook.

        Then of course there is the question of how many of those people who say they would vote for an atheist will actually vote. Considering how low the poll turnout is, it is quite likely that the real numbers will be a lot different than what is demonstrated above.

        • ortcutt

          The data shows that people don’t really become much more religious.  Look at the data here collected by generations. 

          http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx

          Stated Boomer religious attendance has increased from 26% to 32%.  But that’s still lower than Silent or Greatest generation attendance at any period.  The trend is slow decline in religiosity and greater toleration of other faiths and atheists.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Prove that they’re “intentionally insulting,” as compared to insulting to people who get offended when seeing anything that disagrees with them. 

  • Deven Kale

    What I find most interesting is that, according to those graphs and trends, every demographic is becoming more acceptable now that it was before. I’d like to think this means that, as a country, we are all becoming more accepting of diversity than we have been historically. This story actually  restores a bit of my faith in humanity.

  • DG

    In all fairness, it’s probably due to who so many atheists pick to represent them.  When the primary representatives more or less say that they are the smart ones, unlike stupid religious people who believe a big lie that is the single biggest cause of evil in history (please ignore evidence to the contrary), and our only hope is to wipe religion off the map, it’s not surprising.  Most atheists who have the press are, on the atheist side of things, somewhere between Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps on the religious side of the tracks.  That so many atheists miss that point is probably why so many others wouldn’t want them.  The saddest thing?  I know atheists who have said what I’ve just said: the problem with the image of modern atheists is, modern atheists.  I always have to remind myself that, just like most media reps of any group, the ones the press choose to focus on do not necessarily represent atheists in general.  And because of that, I would gladly vote for an atheist who represented what I thought were key issues for our country’s well beings, rather than the pop media portrayal of the day (the Harris/Dawkins gang need not apply.  We won’t even discuss Maher and his ilk). 

    • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

      I would modify this somewhat.  I think that initially, atheists were distrusted for the same reason that any minority is mistrusted: they are different from those of the more powerful majority. Unfortunately, as you have indicated, the public face of atheism has been a public relations disaster.  Such representatives are doing a good job of rallying those who are already nonbelievers, but I believe they are also serving to retard the growth of acceptance among religious people. Creating and/or enhancing an “us vs. them” dynamic is useful for creating a strong, active group of core people who share in the same philosophies but it also encourages outsiders to hate those same core members and the larger demographic they hail from.

      I’m not sure, in the long run, this is the best approach.

      • DG

        I think you are spot on.  Though I don’t know if hate is the right word, as much as concern and suspicion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/keithacollyer Keith Collyer

       I’m not aware I picked anyone to represent me. It’s not like there was a vote or anything. I guess if I joined an atheist organization (that, by the way, makes almost as little sense as an anarchist organization) and I disagreed with its leaders I could vote against them. But as the only thing atheists have in common is non-belief it would be, to use the old analogy, like joining a club for non-stamp collectors

  • http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/ Andrew Hall

    There should be a category like Jerry Sandusky on the form so that  atheists wouldn’t be in last place.

    • TheAnalogKid

      Actually if Sandusky claimed to be born again and washed in the blood of Jebus, people would vote for him before they’d vote for an atheist.

  • TheAnalogKid

    I use to eat shit from religious people (this being the USA, mostly from good Christian folk). I ate plenty while in the Marine Corps. About twenty years ago I decided it was someone else’s turn to eat it. and if the subject is oppression, violence, misogyny, I really don’t it.

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    This poll just tells me the extent to which people will lie- maybe to themselves. 95% will vote for a black? Rubbish, given the substantial minority who didn’t vote for, and don’t support Obama, simply because he’s black. Way more than 5%!

    It’s hard to take seriously any poll that asks people who they will vote for, since they ultimately decide that based on so many factors, conscious and otherwise.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      Well it does say from their own party. I think a black republican would definitely have a chance. There would be people who wouldn’t want to vote for a black candidate, but I think there are also plenty of people who don’t want to vote for a Mormon. In the end, they’ll do it because it’s better than a godless liberal.

  • http://southernhumanist.wordpress.com/ R. Lee Bays

    Aw man, why don’t they put the WASP control on the list? 

  • http://aboutkitty.blogspot.com/ Cat’s Staff

    Could they at least start including Scientologists in the poll, so we wouldn’t have to be at the bottom.

  • Blanc_Slate

    Will support for an atheist presidential candidate ever reach 90%? Not in America, no.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ORRVVC5R2QWLTXEM6SX5L6BORE Jay Arrrr

    Exactly 4% of those polled are telling the truth. A good portion of the 96% are lying when they say they’d vote for a black person.

    And the 54% of those who say they’d vote for an Atheist are full of shit, too. There ain’t that many of us.

  • Rennie

    Reply to Rich Wilson
    “So, if your kid knowing that gay people exist is anything like my kid
    knowing that adults believe in fairy tales, then I hear ya.”

    Not even close and it goes way beyond just knowing “gay people exist” and into intimate details. Young kids can relate to super heros and fairy tales in an innocent way. But two women or men ‘having’ a baby is going to be outside the experience of most kids and it raises questions they may be way to young to be dealing with. But we don’t want gays to be offended. We’d rather the kids were hurt.

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      “We’d rather the kids were hurt?” Really? How is your child hurt by meeting children with two moms or two dads?

      Look, if gay families bother you so much, then send your child to a private religious school where they will never have to encounter a classmate with gay parents. Children from same-sex families have every right to go to public school and feel welcome and accepted there. They shouldn’t have to remain silent about their families because some religious people are homophobic.

      • Rennie

        Lot’s of people are doing just that because the political and sexual indoctrination has become intolerable. But you don’t care about anyone else do you? You have become the intolerant bigots now. Congrats.

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          Yes, I’m an “intolerant bigot” because, as the daughter of two lesbian moms, I think it was my right to feel safe and validated in a school that my parents paid taxes to support.

          It seems to me that you are the one who doesn’t care about anyone else, and you want to take out your hostility on innocent children. How nasty and mean-spirited that is. You seem to believe that the public schools should get together with you to ignore and stigmatize children from same-sex families. What total arrogance, to pretend that you own the public schools and should dictate what sorts of children are allowed to feel safe and welcomed. Public schools are for all children, not just those from Christian families, not just those from heterosexual families, not just those from conservative families.

          If you don’t want your children to encounter people with different backgrounds, then by all means, send them to a private religious school. But it is crazy to whine and cry about your children meeting other children from different types of families at a school that is created for all children and paid for by all kinds of parents.

          It would be ludicrous for me to send my child to public school and then complain because he came home with questions after talking to a classmate with a different racial, religious, or socio-economic background. What’s next? Banning children from Muslim families so your child doesn’t come home with “uncomfortable” questions about Islam?

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Not sure the agenda of the Good News Club is all that innocent, but let’s move on to what’s really important.

      Keeping kids from getting hurt.

      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202 

      Yes, let’s make sure they know how wrong Anna’s family is and see if we can get any of them to off themselves so our kids don’t catch gay.  Something like that?

      (Edit: correct Anna, not Annie, sorry Anna)

    • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

      Yes, because realizing that two people of the same sex can fall in love and start a family together via adoption or the help of a doctor (artificial insemination) would be terribly damaging to a child.

      Love and family only become wholesome activities for children to know about if it involves two people of the opposite sex falling in love and linking genitals, or adopting, or using medical procedures to overcome fertility issues.

      As a gay person, I’m more than happy to “hurt” your children with the knowledge of my existence.  I live for the day when children can grow up understanding the full diversity of humanity rather than being fed the lies of a narrow minded 1950s fantasy.  Goodness forbid that we nasty queers influence children before their conservative elders instil fear, hatred, and prejudice.

      Oh, let me guess: you aren’t prejudiced.  You just care about the children and I’m a bad person for suggesting that you’re a hater.

      • Rennie

        “As a gay person, I’m more than happy to “hurt” your children with the knowledge of my existence. ”

        I’ll decide what I’ll teach my children and when, not you. Your arrogance  says it all. I can see you all dropped the ‘tolerance’ pretense when you moved on to forcing people to ‘celebrate’ you.

        • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

          I feel no sympathy toward
          bigots—especially those who are doing their best to infect the next
          generation with their hurtful beliefs. When confronted with those who
          represent the social forces of prejudice that lead to my own
          experience of a childhood filled with emotional and physical abuse,
          my willingness to tolerate diminishes. Children raised by parents
          with “moral values” such as yours inevitably carry the
          hatred of warped perceptions of LGBT people into schools and the
          social venues of youth everywhere. People like you are responsible
          for the pain and death of so many LGBT children across the world.I
          will fight hateful perspectives such as yours tooth and nail. I make
          no apologies for this. If you want to know one of the reasons why
          there is a building animosity toward your particular variation of
          religion, you need only look in the mirror. If you want to know why
          people are rejecting the supposedly righteous foundation of morality
          laid down in your religion, look upon your prejudices as evidence of
          the failings of your moral code. Your approach to the world fosters
          pain and hatred.

          I know Christians who truly use their
          religion as a basis of promoting love and understanding. I hope with
          all my heart that their variation of the religion supersedes yours.

        • TheAnalogKid

          I’m sure you are doing a fine job of teaching your children; in the vein of “ain’t no homos gonna go to Heaven” and “beating the gay out of kids”.

        • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

          I can see you all dropped the ‘tolerance’ pretense when you moved on to forcing people to ‘celebrate’ you.

          One more thing. This particular sentence is dripping in hatefulness.

          “Celebrate” me? The “celebration” I recieved from my community when I was growing up consisted of being beaten up, verbally taunted, and ostracised on a regular basis. This celebration continued when I was a young adult and my father warned me that our relationship would end if I ever came out to him as gay.

          So, here’s how we can “celebrate me” and others like me. How about fostering a culture that truly values love? How about working toward a world in which the bond of love between two people is celebrated for the joy that it is instead of relegating love to only being permissible between people with differing genetals? Perhaps we can also work toward creating a culture that discourages our children from bullying each other based upon the prejudices of their parents? Or does your variation of religion make it impossible to celebrate love and discourage children from beating on each other? (You’ve given every indication that this unfortunate state of affairs is most likely true.)

          I hope that none of your children turn out to be gay or bi. I’m more than familiar with what it’s like to be raised by someone like you. Your “values” destroy young hearts. Your “values” bring pain. Your “values” foster prejudice and discrimination.

          • Au_catboy

             If these whining christians with their martyr fantasies had to endure even an instant of ACTUAL persecution, they’d run screaming into the night and never return.  Their cult is too flimsy and weak to survive by any means other than oppression, terrorism, and child abuse. 

        • amycas

          So, do you get just as upset when your kids find out about the existence of people from other religions? What about people of a different race? Do you shield them from knowing the existence of all people who are different? 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      Really? That hurts kids?
      Okay, lets think about this for a moment…Kids typically learn how babies are made at a young age and are given a very basic explanation. They don’t really learn about sex until they’re older, and that’s typically a gradual process as they get more information from their friends, parents, and sex ed at school.
      So when a child sees that their mom is pregnant and asks how that happens, they’ll get an explanation involving a penis, vagina, sperm, and an egg. Yuck!
      When a child sees that two men or two women have had a baby, they’ll get an explanation involving adoption, sperm donation, or a surrogate mother.
      With a straight couple, you have to give an explanation about sex. With a gay couple, you either have to explain adoption or explain the sperm and the egg. You don’t have to explain sex at all because sex isn’t a part of the reproduction for gay couples. Little kids don’t know that sex is recreational, so why would they need to learn about gay sex when they’re learning about babies?
      Kids find sex weird or gross. But we don’t want heterosexuals to be offended. We’d rather hurt the kids with knowledge of sex than for us to just stop having sex.

      • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

        Well put.

    • amycas

       When two men or two women have a baby, it raises the same questions as when a man and a woman have a baby: where do babies come from? That’s the question that is raised. you can tell your kid the truth: babies come from two people having sex and/or the sperm reaching the egg; or you can lie and obfuscate. I don’t see how your kid knowing about sex hurts them in any way. If they have questions about two men or two women having a baby, just say they adopted the baby, or in the case of invitro (sp?), explain what invitro is. None of this requires you to describe any particular gay* sex act.

      *there is actually no such thing as a “gay” sex act, because one doesn’t have to be gay to perform any sex act that is typically referred to as such.

    • Baby_Raptor

      A child seeing something you disagree with does not constitute harm. Hate to burst your bubble…

      Nor does a kid seeing something that they might not understand. That happens in everyday life. 

      If you don’t like gays, more power to you. But stop lying about us already. You’re only hurting yourself. 

  • dangeroustalk

    I always call bullshit on these polls. You mean to tell me that if the Republicans had a choice between an atheist Republican and Barack Obama, they would vote for Obama? I don’t think so. And likewise, I doubt that if the Democrats had a choice between Sarah Palin and an atheist, they would vote for Palin. Those polls would go much differently if they put actual names with the candidates. I’m just say’n.

  • Deven Kale

    In reply to Rennie (damn Discus spaghettification):

    Except your information wasnt correct … was it Devan

    1. The least you could do is spell my name right.

    2. It most definitely was the Jews which started this “war on Christmas” that everybody has been talking about lately, the greetings are only part of it. Remember about 10 years ago– there was a very focussed campaign from the Jews through TV commercials, music, TV shows, and movies pointing out that Christmas was not the only Holiday celebrated in December and they were starting to get bothered by the focus on it. There were skits on Saturday Night Live about Hannukah. Adam Sandler had his annual Hannukah album, and his “Hannukah song” was played all over the place. TV commercials were showing people celebrating Hannukah instead of Christmas. Sitcoms would be careful to have at least one Jewish character in them during the season, so nobody could claim they were being ignored.

    The list goes on, but I think you get the point. These are the primary reasons why the ideas of “Winter Break” and “Happy Holidays” are so prevalent. It’s not because of atheists who, as I said before, mostly celebrate Christmas themselves. It’s quite definitely because the Jews got tired of the focus on Christmas and instituted a very effective campaign to get Hanukkah recognized during the holiday season, in the form of more generic terminology.

    • Rennie

      I call BS on you. Jews had nothing to do with any of the cases in my area or any of the ones I read about elsewhere. It was atheist activism 100%. I wasn’t even aware of any so called Jewish influence until you brought it up so it can’t be as influencial as you’d like to think.

      • Deven Kale

         If you’re talking about the recent trend for atheists to bring lawsuits against city and state governments regarding their overt endorsement of Christianity through taxpayer funded Christmas displays, that’s not what I’m talking about. That is nothing more than defending the first amendment of the constitution, and has more to do with separation of church and state than Christmas, which (again) most atheists celebrate themselves. For example, give me one example of an atheist filing suit on a private entity regarding their Christmas displays.

        I’m talking about the supposed “War on Christmas,” based on your statements about “Winter Break” and the statement “Happy Holidays.” If you’re unaware that there’s far more of a Jewish influence on that than an atheist one, then it would seem your inability to listen and pay attention to others is not a recent occurrence.

        • Rennie

          I was very clear that I was talking about atheists who forced school boards to stop using the term Christmas break and switch it to winter break or something similar.

          • TheAnalogKid

            Merry Motherfucking Christmas, Motherfucker.

          • Deven Kale

            I guess it’s my turn to call Bullshit on you, since I have a hard time believing that atheists have “forced school boards to stop using the term Christmas break.” In fact, I have a hard time believing anybody forces it most of the time. The school boards here in Utah did so on their own accord, with no coercion from anybody. I obviously can’t speak for any of them since I’m not on any school board, but I would imagine it’s because they wanted to be inclusive of Jews/Hanukkah in their terminology, just like stores and TV shows.

  • WoodwindsRock

    The fact that there is ANY percentage of people who wouldn’t vote for a president because they’re black or a woman really makes me sad. I know they’re out there… But come on.

  • TheAnalogKid

    Dawkins’ emails;

    http://youtu.be/v1QmhVxyVkc

  • The Other Weirdo

    I don’t feel that bad about it, actually. We’re the least electable demographic, right there behind the Muslims. However, they had to work hard to get that despised. They  had to blow shit up, fly airplanes into buildings and try to light shoes on fire. We, on the other hand, got there on nothing more than our innate laziness. In other words, we made other people do all the work. So, kudos for us.

    • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

      Whereas it took many decades of western imperialism to encourage Muslims’ contempt for the west. Funny how terrorism has originated in the same lands that happen to sit on top of “our” oil reserves. Such vast resources certainly wouldn’t lead to industrialized nations seeking geopolitical control over the governments and lands of those countries, now would it? Such external interference couldn’t possibly serve to generate resentment toward the west, could it? How long before some form of push-back arises? In what form will it take? Through which cultural channels would this resistance arise?

      However, it’s really all about religious fanaticism. Westerners are the aggrieved innocents. It’s just that simple.

      It would seem that our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels has destabilized both the atmosphere and international relationships.

      • Spuddie

        “Funny how terrorism has originated in the same lands that happen to sit on top of “our” oil reserves.”

        I remember seeing a book about the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after World War One which described it as “The Peace to end all Peace”.

  • kaydenpat

    I would love to hear from people why they wouldn’t vote for an atheist.  What exactly is it about atheists that they find so objectionable?  Certainly, no one can say that in the United States, atheists have been a force of evil.  Seems like atheists are being viewed as some kind of bogeyman — based on stereotypes and misunderstandings.

    As a liberal Christian, I would much rather vote for a liberal atheist than a Christian Rightwinger. 

  • http://heathenhall.blogspot.com Joseph

    “I suppose we can be thrilled that, for the first time, more than half the country would theoretically vote for us”

    That’s technically not true. The number topped 50% for the first time last year, at 52%. (You need to download the pdf from Gallup to see the year-by-year numbers.)

  • Sharkoman

    too bad one of the greatest presidents in history was atheist( Thomas Jefferson)

    andthe guy on our 100 dollar bill was one too (Benjamin Franklin)

  • Osama1964

     

    This is simply because religions have been encrypted
    imposing either the US
    as the gods of the world or imposing other criminal entities or criminals
    organizations as local gods.

    ———-

    It seems that the US (not necessarily Americans themselves;
    but nets originated from the US, particularly after the year 1945) had
    converted the world populations into human-subspecies; such species are unable
    to think or decide, they are controlled like Muppets; those who control those Moppets are not cleared and they are not obvious although they hint sometimes
    or they claim to be intelligent organizations, at this point the Matrix theory
    is the most logical explanation so far.

    ——–

    In the name of religion; crimes, distribution of wealth and
    many other corruption activities could b not only be accepted by society but
    also blessed and encouraged, in many parts of the Arab countries ; for instance
    ; all and every wealthy person , all and every person who hold a post , any
    public figure is a Muppet , in another word ; a moron ! They do that in a very
    precise and strict way indicating that such process is computerized

    —–

    However ; Wars or fights is a waste of time; undone what you
    have done in the same way, “re –design” the Matrix; if you mean well or it will
    be understood that all these troubles are done intentionally to put humanity
    into the worst misery times in their whole history       

    • Spuddie

      “they are controlled like Muppets”

      Are they more like the rod and hand versions like Kermit or are the animatronic like Jabba the Hutt.

  • Faith = Reason

    Well as friendly as you people seem. I’ll just leave anything I have to say in one comment. Then you can troll to your hearts content. ^_^ While calling God an imaginary friend may be your way of dealing with your clearly inferior childhood (I mean seriously! Who hates on imaginary friends anyway?) it is a silly claim. Your theories that dismiss creationism as superfluous are really set up for failure. The big bang. Lol. Matter can not be created or destroyed. Well if that’s true did stuff just exist forever? How is that possible. It had to have some sort of begining point right? Well if it didn’t exist and then suddenly did exist that would go agianst the laws of matter. Your own evidence is set up to contradict itself. It’s kinda funny. Well, I’m done I got an art project to finish. (Oh my goodness it’s an Christian in one of the most liberal and secular fields there is!! =O lol)

    • Spuddie

      As any 4-year old can attest to, this leaves out the most important question. If everything was created, who created God? Its nice to see someone rehash an argument which was old hat at least a century before Darwin’s birth.

  • Spuddie

    Flagged as inappropriate. This site is not here so you can shill your self-published book.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X