Gallup: For the first time, a majority of Americans say they’d vote for an atheist for president

posted at 7:51 pm on June 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Blogger’s plan to be president by 2040 still on track.”

Note to The One: You can admit it now.

I’ve blogged a bunch of these Gallup polls over the years and my demographic has always been at the bottom of the barrel preference-wise. But things are improving: In 2007, just 45 percent said they’d vote for an atheist, then last year it crept up to 49 percent. Now we’re over the hump at 54. I wonder why. It’s not like the “new atheism” suddenly exploded onto the national scene over the past six months, and to hear believers tell it, the new atheism is more likely to alienate people than persuade them. Maybe, maybe not. What you’re seeing here, I think, is the fruit of normalization: It’s not so much that people are becoming more sympathetic to atheism (although that might be true) than that, as atheists become more visible culturally, people see for themselves that we’re not that weird or threatening. Acceptance of gays works along the same lines, of course, except that they’re further along than we are. For a vivid illustration of that, follow the Gallup link up top and check out the breakdown among different age groups. Young adults react to gays and atheists similarly; older adults, not so much. Note the trendlines in the table I posted above, too. Thirty-five years ago, atheists held a double-digit lead on this question over gays. Today, the opposite is true.

This isn’t much of a partisan issue, either:

I’d love to see the demographic split on Democrats who would and wouldn’t vote for a nonbeliever. If, say, 90 percent of limousine liberals are willing to vote for an atheist, how low must the percentage be among blue-collar Dems? Ah well. Suffice it to say, it’s still risky even for a secretly atheist liberal pol to admit his lack of faith publicly.

Oh, and as for the elephant in the room, 24 percent of Democrats admit that they won’t vote for a Mormon versus just 10 percent of Republicans who say so. Overall, 18 percent of adults say they wouldn’t; a year ago, it was 22 percent. The reason that number has shrunk is almost entirely due to GOPers becoming more comfortable with a Mormon nominee as Romney advanced through the primaries. Last year, 80 percent of Republicans said they’d be willing to vote for a Mormon. This year, 90 percent say so. Mitt’s made a difference to future elections even if he doesn’t win this one.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The burden of proof is on you.
You’re the one asserting the existence of an invisible supernatural skybeing.
They’res just as much evidence of the existence of unicorns.
Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I’ve scrolled back through the thread and can find no post of mine wherein I’ve asserted that God exists. Perhaps you’re merely upset at what you perceive to be my bias and wish to take issue with that?

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

The amount of genetic information contained in ONE bacteria cell should be more than enough to prove an “intelligent designer”.

See: Irreducible complexity, the fallacious ‘lynchpin’ of ID:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

How is that evidence of magic?

Complexity occurs in the natural world. That doesn’t mean an invisible skybeing snapped its fingers with magic life-dust and made it happen. Newsflash.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Europe’s been doing it for years and look where that led? Russia and China consistently vote for athiests and look where that led.

I keep hearing that athiests are as moral as someone who believes in God. Perhaps, but if they change their mind, what exactly keeps them from becoming any old dictator who views the lives of their subjects as expendable for the good of the ideology? Eternally speaking, they’ve nothing to lose if they decide to suspend immigration laws or approve power by fiat. It’s rather like the little brats who threatened a 68 year old bus monitor. Rather like a bureaucratic board in Washington DC deciding that if your over 60, you don’t get health care. There’s no one to answer to, not even your own conscience.

The ONLY thing in our founding documents which sets the absolute rule for freedom: we are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain rights. Not granted by a benign person whose successor might not agree. As we’ve seen, laws are essentially meaningless when prosecuted by a narcicist. He gets away with it and says anything he wants without retribution even by a so-called “free” press. He obviously doesn’t believe in any reckoning. He will face no worse punishment than Stalin or Hitler or Saddam. Why shouldn’t they live out their personal godhood dream, like George Soros? Not even the best of our technology can read truth and goodness in a candidate and one that believes there’s no one to answer to but himself is always in danger of morphing into a monster. Without Eve, there’s just the law of the jungle.

And, BTW, I’ve always thought activist athiests were pretty arrogant. They dismiss the personal experiences of literally billions of people since the dawn of mankind. And I’ve yet to see one who really is smart enough for that bit of self-delusion.

Portia46 on June 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I’ve scrolled back through the thread and can find no post of mine wherein I’ve asserted that God exists. Perhaps you’re merely upset at what you perceive to be my bias and wish to take issue with that?

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I’ve already evaluated your seriousness on the topic when you engaged in your bizarre line of inquiry alleging that I’m a homosexual and that I said that somewhere at some point, and that it has something to do with atheism.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Perhaps, but if they change their mind, what exactly keeps them from becoming any old dictator who views the lives of their subjects as expendable for the good of the ideology?

Are you suggesting that dictators aren’t believers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM

But no one (including God) can force a defiant person to believe in anything.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

So God isn’t omnipotent?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist’s burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins.

The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat.

Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability.” -Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I’ve already evaluated your seriousness on the topic when you engaged in your bizarre line of inquiry alleging that I’m a homosexual and that I said that somewhere at some point, and that it has something to do with atheism.
Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Go ahead. Keep wiggling. LOL

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM

You don’t need to believe in god(s) or magic to understand the concepts of political freedom, economic liberty and the fallacy of dictatorship or monarchy (which for hundreds of years was the faith-based method of oppressing humanity). Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Without belief that God granted us our liberties there would be no United States of America. Losing that belief would result in the exacerbation of the problems we are now experiencing as we lose that belief, apparently becoming less Christian and more non-Christian.

Again, please tell us which atheist nation we should mimic to improve ourselves.

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I see no payoff in arguing with atheists. Put the truth out there and pray for them, then leave them be. I have never had any success teaching a pig to sing. It wears me out and annoys the pig.

Extrafishy on June 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM

So God isn’t omnipotent?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM

There would be no such thing as defiance if God denied us free will.

Why is it necessary to go over the same ground with you in every single one of these threads? Do you suffer from short term memory loss, or are you proud of being deliberately obtuse? Has it never occurred to you that perhaps you are choking your own brain with its extremely narrow insistence on continuing to ignore past discussions on this subject?

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Go ahead. Keep wiggling. LOL

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM

And you keep living in that little impenetrable bubble that is your head.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

There would be no such thing as defiance if God denied us free will.

What’s wrong with defiance?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I have never had any success teaching a pig to sing. It wears me out and annoys the pig.

Extrafishy on June 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Yes, now we’re “pigs” because we don’t believe in magic or invisible desert skyfathers.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

So God isn’t omnipotent?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Which God? Zeus?

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Without belief that God granted us our liberties there would be no United States of America.

That’s why the US was created as a secular government, of course.

Citing the preamble of the Declaration of Independence is not “the law of the land.”

The Constitution is the law, and it separates the church from the government.

Ask yourself why.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Which God? Zeus?

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Exactly.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Yes, now we’re “pigs” because we don’t believe in magic or invisible desert skyfathers.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The burden of proof is on you.

Prove that “invisible desert skyfathers” don’t exist.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

52% of the American voters voted for an athiest last time. What’s the big deal? It just shows that the public will vote for anyone.

BetseyRoss on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Go ahead. Keep wiggling. LOL
Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM
And you keep living in that little impenetrable bubble that is your head.
Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

LOL. ANYTHING rather than present the evidence you’ve evaluated leading you to conclude that there is no God.

But WE’RE the fantasists.

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

What’s wrong with defiance?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I am now starting to lean towards mental illness.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM

What’s wrong with defiance?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

.
Directed towards who or what?

Defiance by it self is not a bad thing.

But defiance directed at “recognition of the existence of God” is another thing.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Later Lt. Got more important things to do than banter with a cynic.

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Again, please tell us which atheist nation we should mimic to improve ourselves.

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Are you that much of a sheep that you can’t think for yourself and abide by a general rule of ‘treat others as you would yourself?’ Which was a moral concept proffered long before Christianity?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Later Lt. Got more important things to do than banter with a cynic.

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Godspeed. ;-)

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The Constitution is the law, and it separates the church from the government.

Ask yourself why.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Except that it doesn’t. That is a misreading invented in the last 100 years. Ask yourself why you don’t know this.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Defiance by it self is not a bad thing.

So it can be a good thing, then.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Except that it doesn’t. That is a misreading invented in the last 100 years. Ask yourself why you don’t know this.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Except that it does. Nowhere in the Constitution is the church granted governmental powers.

In fact, the word “god” is not mentioned once in the document.

Try again to rewrite US history.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

The Constitution is the law, and it separates the church from the government. Ask yourself why. Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Please, where is this separation of which you speak? This is news to me. What’s not news is that there were seven states with state churches when the Constitution was ratified, so I think no one misunderstood the Bill of Rights then as you do now.

Huh, an atheist can’t understand our founding documents. Coincidence?

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

That’s why the US was created as a secular government, of course.

Citing the preamble of the Declaration of Independence is not “the law of the land.”

The Constitution is the law, and it separates the church from the government.

Ask yourself why.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM

.
False premise.

The U.S. was NOT created as a “secular” government.

The Church (Christianity) WAS to have influence on the government, but NOT the other way around.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Except that it does. Nowhere in the Constitution is the church granted governmental powers.

In fact, the word “god” is not mentioned once in the document.

Try again to rewrite US history.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Let me re-post what you’re ever ignorant self posted.

The Constitution is the law, and it separates the church from the government.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The Constitution does no such thing.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” -Congress.

The modern translation is:

“School boards may not open their meetings with prayer, the Ten Commandments may not be posted at schools or court houses, public school teachers may not endorse, quote, or read from the Bible or lead their classes in prayer, no cross or creche may be erected on public land, children attending religious schools may not ride public school buses, no faith-based subject matter may be taught in public schools except for evolution and Marxism, and anything else Good Lt can come up with.”

I like the original better.

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Congrats, AP. I’d even wonder if this has more to do with seeing less atheists in confrontational roles. I could vote for you in a heartbeat, but the more Dawkins is in the news, the less likely I would be to say I’d vote for an atheist.

Esthier on June 22, 2012 at 11:08 AM

The Constitution does no such thing.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Where in the Constitution are churches given the power to govern?

Cite the article and section.

The Church (Christianity) WAS to have influence on the government, but NOT the other way around.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

But the church wasn’t the government itself. ANYBODY can have influence on the government, not just ‘the church.’

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I know better. I blame myself for arguing with a five year old. A person cannot reasonably blame the five year old. It is only children who pretend to not hear the things that others say to them. May God have mercy on your soul.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Please, where is this separation of which you speak? This is news to me. What’s not news is that there were seven states with state churches when the Constitution was ratified, so I think no one misunderstood the Bill of Rights then as you do now.

Huh, an atheist can’t understand our founding documents. Coincidence?

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Spare us your wishes for a theocracy.

It ain’t happening. Time to start dealing with it.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I know better. I blame myself for arguing with a five year old. A person cannot reasonably blame the five year old. It is only children who pretend to not hear the things that others say to them. May God have mercy on your soul.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Translation: I have nothing left to advance my argument, and I’m resorting to calling you names.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 11:14 AM

The ONLY thing in our founding documents which sets the absolute rule for freedom: we are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain rights

I see this so often as proof that god exists, and that America was founded by believers. So, following your logic, if the human that wrote that line had instead said our rights came from Superman, that is what you’d belive ?

Haldol on June 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Congrats, AP. I’d even wonder if this has more to do with seeing less atheists in confrontational roles. I could vote for you in a heartbeat, but the more Dawkins is in the news, the less likely I would be to say I’d vote for an atheist.

Esthier on June 22, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Why would you judge all atheists by the actions of one?

Should we judge all Christians by the actions Ted Haggard?

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Yes, now we’re “pigs” because we don’t believe in magic or invisible desert skyfathers.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The burden of proof is on you.

Prove that “invisible desert skyfathers” don’t exist.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

.
But the church wasn’t the government itself. ANYBODY can have influence on the government, not just ‘the church.’

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

.
We both agree that “the Church wasn’t the Government itself” (that would be a Theocracy), but the Church has in recent years been forbidden to have any influence on political policy.

And this is based on the erroneous belief that any influence of Christianity upon the Government constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM

.
We both agree that “the Church wasn’t the Government itself” (that would be a Theocracy), but the Church has in recent years been forbidden to have any influence on political policy.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM

With so many devout Christians in Congress, how do you figure the Church isn’t influencing policy?

Go RBNY on June 22, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Per gallup, 92% of Americans believe in God, 78% are Christians.

God bless America.

kingsjester on June 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I see this so often as proof that god exists, and that America was founded by believers. So, following your logic, if the human that wrote that line had instead said our rights came from Superman, that is what you’d belive ?

Haldol on June 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

No. And I don’t think I made that point to try and “prove” the existence of God and I doubt the people you refer to did either.

So, why don’t you respond to the point I DID make: who or what endows men and women with the dignity of their rights? A man? A government? We’ve seen how well that’s turned out, haven’t we?

Portia46 on June 22, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Atheism is a symptom of a mental disorder, or severe psychological defect.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM

So…. not believing in something that can’t be proven and is entirely a matter of faith is a mental disorder?

Wendya on June 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM

His Catholic priest maybe…

jimver on June 22, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Maybe, although the level of emotion involved makes me believe it was someone closer to her/him.

Whenever I see a person’s atheism be so rabidly anti-theistic, the first idea that pops into my head is that they probably suffered at the hands of an abusive person whose religious beliefs factored into the abuse somehow.

Bizarro No. 1 on June 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Gallup: For the first time, a majority of Americans say they’d vote for an atheist for president

I think they already have!

Dasher on June 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

So…. not believing in something that can’t be proven and is entirely a matter of faith is a mental disorder?

Wendya on June 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM

What do you mean by “proof?”

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

go build an altar and try to get your god to light your sacrifice on fire… geesh

Zekecorlain on June 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Whenever I see a person’s atheism be so rabidly anti-theistic, the first idea that pops into my head is that they probably suffered at the hands of an abusive person whose religious beliefs factored into the abuse somehow.

Many of the Pagans I know were raised in fundamentalist, legalistic homes. All judgment, no grace. No wonder they rejected the Gospel.

Atheism is a symptom of a mental disorder, or severe psychological defect.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM

No. Sometimes it’s a defensive barrier against past spiritual abuse. Sometimes it’s the natural result of growing up unchurched in a secularized culture that mocks faith.

Back in the middle of the last century, people of faith and religious leaders were depicted reverently in popular culture. “The Bells of St. Mary’s”
“The Shoes of the Fisherman”
“The Robe”
“Ben Hur”
“The Agony and the Ecstasy”
“Becket”
and so on.

Today? Try to find an openly religious character in a major TV series or major studio release who’s depicted as normal.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

So…. not believing in something that can’t be proven and is entirely a matter of faith is a mental disorder?

Wendya on June 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM

No. Being angry at God and the rest of the world for not being angry with you is a mental disorder. The public face of atheism is a very angry and mentally challenged movement. And take a gander of the demographic breakdown above. Who is the most intolerant group in that list?

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Congrats, AP. I’d even wonder if this has more to do with seeing less atheists in confrontational roles. I could vote for you in a heartbeat, but the more Dawkins is in the news, the less likely I would be to say I’d vote for an atheist.

Esthier on June 22, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I think it does.

I don’t like Hitchens very much, but he’s not as rude nor consumed with anger like an obnoxious atheist like Dawkins, and because of that many theists will pay attention to him in a way they won’t with Dawkins.

I know 2 atheists here, gravityman and Resist We Much, who are pleasant people and respectful of the religious, and I doubt they’d have much trouble getting political support from believers if they were to run for office…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Yes, now we’re “pigs” because we don’t believe in magic or invisible desert skyfathers.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

It was an analogy…a parable even. I don’t think he was calling you pigs. What you identify with is your problem.

swinia sutki on June 22, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be either proven or disproven. “Proof” is evidence which eliminates all possibility of doubt (as well as faith). DNA evidence meets this standard as regards proof of parentage. Dropping a baseball and a cannonball from a tower meets this proof as regards the acceleration of gravity.

There is no such incontrovertibly evidence as regards the existence of God. The believer cannot be shaken by philosophical arguments about the problem of evil, because s/he believes that God knows the answers even if they are beyond human understanding. (There is ample support for this in the Bible.)

The non-believer simply rejects any proffered evidence as insufficient, continually moving the goalposts with the (demonstrably false) canard, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

From a Christian POV, this is a theologically sound state of affairs. Scripture teaches, “without faith it is impossible to please God.” If there is no room for doubt there can be no room for faith.

Scripture also teaches that on the last day, “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” On that day the skeptics and mockers will get their proof. There will no longer be room for doubt. But it will also be too late for faith.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

What you identify with is your problem.

If the shoe fits… :-D

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM

“Proof” is evidence which eliminates all possibility of doubt (as well as faith).
skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Nothing can be proven, then.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Nothing can be proven, then.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM

That is correct. There is, however, a very large body of evidence that persuaded this former skeptic that the historical claims of Christianity were more than likely true. More generally, there is ample evidence that points toward the existence of a reality beyond that which we can directly sense and measure. (I do a two-hour workshop on this, FWIW.)

But at the core of it, I look at the reality of the fact that for all our lofty ideas, we’re fragile beings on a fragile planet in a tiny backwater of an unimaginably huge and complex universe.

The thought that there cannot possibly exist any reality beyond that which we can sense I find utterly ludicrous. (The Greeks called that attitude hubris.)

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Perhaps, but if they change their mind, what exactly keeps them from becoming any old dictator who views the lives of their subjects as expendable for the good of the ideology?
Are you suggesting that dictators aren’t believers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

No. I did not say that at all because that would be a little odd, don’t you think?

The two greatest documents in the entire history of mankind which recognized the dignity and rights of an individual regardless of their station in life are both based on the notion that there is a higher being and a higher purpose than that of men, even powerful men. Thus, the march of civilization and a quest for understanding.

Man through all recorded time has sought to understand the Nature of God and somehow reconcile that with the Nature of Man. The greatest written and artistic works of mankind are grounded in this quest; yet, you somehow believe your thoughts and conclusions out “think” all these and mockery without depth substitutes for knowledge? Asserting the simplistic notion that if God were omnipotent, there would be no evil, reflects total ignorance of theology. What was it God said to Job? I think that perhaps applies here.

Portia46 on June 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM

That is correct.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Nothing can be proven? Think about what you saying – if you honestly believe that nothing can be proven, you’re a confused, irrational person who can’t see/understand the difference between spinning your tires, and forward motion.

Bizarro No. 1 on June 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM

We don’t know squat and, unfortunately, too many of us don’t know we don’t know squat.

I personally have a very simple proof for the existence of God: Nothing can exist at all without something being infinite. God is, of course, infinite. Nothing created Him, He just always was. It doesn’t matter if God shaped every single tiny aspect of creation as we know it, or just simply set into motion the laws of this universe. Without His infinite being nothing would be here regardless.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Yes, now we’re “pigs” because we don’t believe in magic or invisible desert skyfathers.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Well, actually, you, yourself have declared that there is absolutely no difference between men and other animals. Only a difference in form. No soul. No purpose. Nothing.

Portia46 on June 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Nothing can be proven? Think about what you saying – if you honestly believe that nothing can be proven, you’re a confused, irrational person who can’t see/understand the difference between spinning your tires, and forward motion.

Bizarro No. 1 on June 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Perhaps I was unclear, assuming that the context was obvious from my prior post.

Nothing can be proven with respect to the existence or nonexistence of God. Plenty of things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt – all manner of physical facts are indisputably provable.

It does not follow, however, than only things which can be proven are important, or real. Einstein said, “Not everything that can be measured, mattes, and not everything that matters can be measured.” For example, I can’t prove that my wife and children love and respect me, but I don’t doubt it for an instant.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Gallup: For the first time, a majority of Americans say they’d vote for an atheist for president

Despite Obama’s claim to the contraray, I think the majority of Americans already have voted for an atheist for president.

Tennman on June 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I think your definition of proof is too narrow, a definition which logically leads to agnosticism about all things.

The proof that the antagonistic atheists on this site and elsewhere require of the theists is nothing more than logical positivism which is self-refuting.

Bottom line is that they cannot prove that God does not exist. But there is proof that God, the God of the Bible, does exist.

Also, the atheist mocks the notion of faith. Faith, as I define it, is having a reasonable warrant to accept something as true.

All knowledge is based on unproven assumptions. But we have reasonable warrant to accept these presupositions as true.

But with today’s (all too often unrecognized) postmodern approach to truth, the only thing left is absolute nihilism.

All claims to knowledge require the claimant to produce proof for that claim. I have here several times offered proof, but “none are so blind as he who claims to see yet does not.”

As an aside, contra Calvin and Arminians both, I hold that saving faith is not something you do, but rather something you have which, as James points out, manifest itsself in certain behaviors. iot is not a work.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Nothing can exist at all without something being infinite.

I want to help you here. I know a bit about formal logic, and this premise is begging for some justification. I don’t see how you can just make the claim.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Liz Goodman partakes in another heap of Obama Beluga caviar caca.

Schadenfreude on June 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Yes, now we’re “pigs” because we don’t believe in magic or invisible desert skyfathers.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The burden of proof is on you.

Prove that “invisible desert skyfathers” don’t exist.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Take your time. You have an eternity in which to formulate a proof.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Did not see this before I posted.

But reasonable warrant, i. e. proof, exists for the existence of the God of the Bible.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Yes, it’s a narrow definition. Definitions need to be narrow if they are to be useful. You say you have offered proof, yet the skeptics deny that it is proof. Clearly, you and the skeptics don’t share the same definition of what constitutes proof.

Proof is that which even a hardened skeptic cannot deny. Case in point: I had a relative who was convinced that no black man could possibly be smart enough to quarterback a football team. In 1988 Doug Williams led the Redskins victory and proved her wrong.

Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus proved that the earth revolves around the sun. There is no rational way to deny heliocentrism.

I have boatloads of evidence supporting the reality of the supernatural in general, and the Resurrection of Jesus in particular. But a determined skeptic can reject the evidence.

(One fellow I laid it out to said, “You’re probably right. I can’t really argue with that. But if I were to agree with you I’d have to change my worldview.” At least he was honest.)

I don’t have a problem with agnostics. At least they’re being honest about their ignorance.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM

But reasonable warrant, i. e. proof, exists for the existence of the God of the Bible.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM

“Reasonable warrant”, yes. Certainly enough to convince this former hard-line skeptic. But that was only because I began my search with the determination to be open-minded to the possibility that God might exist.

But if someone starts from the premise, “God does not exist” and demands that I prove that he does, I will simply wish them good day. They have declared their minds closed and locked.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Mnay reasonable “hardened skeptics” have come to saving faith in Jesus.

But, as you allude, if someome starts out with a naturalistic presupposition, no amount of proof will suffice.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

BTW, skydaddy, I wonder how Good Lt knows he’s good.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:08 PM

But, as you allude, if someome starts out with a naturalistic presupposition, no amount of proof will suffice.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

And that’s why I start from common ground, with a narrow definition of proof. And I give them permission to remain doubters. And then wallop them with a heaping helping of reasons to suspect that materialism is …kind of irrational. :-D

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I stopped trying to convince people god doesn’t exist when I was a teenager. It’s pointless. True believers aren’t gonna be convinced by logic and non believers aren’t gonna be convinced by belief. As long as no one’s trying to push their belief on me I really don’t care what they believe.

I’d hate an atheist president though. Unless someone’s trying to kill me because of it religion is just so unimportant for me that I’d go crazy sitting through a presidency where every time a real issue comes up, everyone gets distracted by someone mentioning god.

Cyhort on June 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Cyhort on June 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I probably would not try to convince atheists either but for 1 Peter 3:15.

Also, you don’t know who might be listening and be encouraged by your words.

Unfortunately, some of my motivation comes from just wanting to mess with their minds. e.g.

Take your time. You have an eternity in which to formulate a proof.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM

And that’s why I start from common ground, with a narrow definition of proof. And I give them permission to remain doubters. And then wallop them with a heaping helping of reasons to suspect that materialism is …kind of irrational. :-D

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I don’t think we are all that far apart.

Jude 1:24-25(NIV)

24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Amen indeed!

I’m not an evangelist. I’m an apologist. I don’t proclaim and preach, I explain and teach.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I don’t like Hitchens very much, but he’s not as rude nor consumed with anger like an obnoxious atheist like Dawkins, and because of that many theists will pay attention to him in a way they won’t with Dawkins.

Two professianal atheists who are claimed to be so brilliant–so brilliant that they spent the majority of their lives fighting someone who they insist doesn’t even exist….

Don L on June 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Two professianal atheists who are claimed to be so brilliant–so brilliant that they spent the majority of their lives fighting someone who they insist doesn’t even exist….

Don L on June 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

heh! I won’t even engage with Dawkins. His sneering condescension a priori declares that he’s not interested in a conversation or even a debate. He’s just a bully.

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I am sure those same people all said that it is about damn time we elected a president from Athea.

manjodad on June 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I don’t need help. But what came before x? What came before x-1? What came before x-2, and so on? There is no existence without existence being an infinite series because something comes before everything. I don’t believe an infinite series can just simply exist without something creating it. And the only thing that can create an infinite series is an infinite being. Therefore God must have always existed with no beginning or no end for anything to exist at all.

NotCoach on June 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Jude 1:24-25(NIV)

24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM

.
You just triggered the memory of a Don Francisco song I like very much.
It’s based on that scripture, and it’s GREAT! : )

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

skydaddy on June 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM

.
Mnay reasonable “hardened skeptics” have come to saving faith in Jesus.

But, as you allude, if someome starts out with a naturalistic presupposition, no amount of proof will suffice.

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

.
True and true.

And you really can’t foresee (unless God gives you revelation) whether or not an individual is in one category, or another.

You have to make the initial contact, and see whether “they trample your pearls” or not.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

You just triggered the memory of a Don Francisco song I like very much.
It’s based on that scripture, and it’s GREAT! : )

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I first heard it at a Francisco concert in Grandview, MO almost thirty years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJkBcmewPo

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I know 2 atheists here, gravityman and Resist We Much, who are pleasant people and respectful of the religious, and I doubt they’d have much trouble getting political support from believers if they were to run for office…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Thank you, Bizarro. :)

Yes, I am an atheist. I’m not an angry atheist, nor am I an anti-theist. I was raised Catholic, studied the Bible in Catholic school, and have studied it as an adult (along with some other ancient religious texts)… they are fascinating jistorical studies, especially The Bible. It gives me a respect for the institution and for believers… I have nothing against either. I simply do not believe in the diety of The Bible or it’s dogma (or any other diety, for that matter).

I actually respect the role religion plays in our society. many atheists do not, and that is a shame. I don’t think I have to believe in God in order to respect the function of churches in fostering a better society. As a libertarian as well as an atheist, I think the role of doing things like feeding the poor should not be a function of our government, but a function of our church charities… which I have been known to contribute to. Again, I don’t believe I need faith in an omnipotent and omniscient creator in order to give to an organization like church charities that I feel are doing some good to help those less fortunate.

All atheists should have a healthy respect for the first amendment, as much or moreso than most believers. It ensures that a state religion is not forced on any non-believer. It protects both groups from being forced into the other’s views, and as such should be respected and appreciated by both groups.

I also respect that it is silly to argue non-believer vs believer. Matters of faith are exactly that… faith. To attempt to argue for or against any diety’s existence is pointless, since it requires faith, which one either has or does not have.

And why would I want to argue someone out of their faith? Even if I were to accomplish that near impossible task, it serves neither myself nor anyone else (including the believer I’ve won over) any purpose whatsoever.

gravityman on June 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Not at all. While I’m neither here nor there on the issue, it being rather unimportant to me, there are many atheists on both sides. As I alluded to, AP is on the pro-choice side. Perhaps you would like ask him to ‘splain it for you?

MJBrutus on June 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

I think you should be excused from jury duty on that basis.

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I would LOVE to be on your jury when you offer your, “The devil made me do it” defense!

MJBrutus on June 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

.
I first heard it at a Francisco concert in Grandview, MO almost thirty years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJkBcmewPo

davidk on June 22, 2012 at 2:32 PM

.
OH . . . YEAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

That’s the stuff ! . . : )

One of his earliest albums, too (maybe the first one?).

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

gravityman on June 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

+1000

melle1228 on June 22, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I was watching Glenn Beck today lamenting how collectivists align their diverse groups so well despite their differences, but conservatives eat each other over their differences.

Three weeks ago, he was lamenting that progressives, Marxists and atheists are destroying the country. WTF?

As an atheist (objectivist), I’m more economically conservative than 90% of Hot Air, and more socially conservative than 50% here. Fighting over this is idiotic. Judge people by their actions, not by one property of their diverse ideologies.

elfman on June 22, 2012 at 7:34 PM

gravityman on June 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

.
Thank you for your honesty. I would insist that science proves that there is an “intelligent designer”. But if you can’t be convinced of it, then I’m left with shrugging my shoulders and walking away.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Where in the Constitution are churches given the power to govern?

Cite the article and section.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Where in the Constitution does it grant Democrats and Republicans the right to govern? Cite the article and section.

I’ll save you the time. It doesn’t. It also doesn’t prevent them from doing so either. Think about that one for a while. Maybe you’ll reach enlightenment.

njrob on June 23, 2012 at 1:08 PM

The hundreds of thousands of proteins necessary to sustain life evolved independently of those life forms that need them to survive. Is that reasonable? Probable?

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

It happened.

Whether or not you find it reasonable or probable without magic is irrelevant.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:29 AM

But oh, the billions of billions of times that it hasn’t happened!

Tzetzes on June 24, 2012 at 12:09 AM

The hundreds of thousands of proteins necessary to sustain life evolved independently of those life forms that need them to survive. Is that reasonable? Probable?

Akzed on June 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

.
It happened.

Whether or not you find it reasonable or probable without magic is irrelevant.

Good Lt on June 22, 2012 at 10:29 AM

.
No it didn’t.

And you’ll meet the Intelligent Designer, whether or not you find it reasonable or probable.

And it’s not “magic”.

listens2glenn on June 24, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Last comment?

Un-Bishop.

listens2glenn on June 24, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Maybe anti-Bishop?

Non-Bishop?

Reverse-Bishop?

Opposite Bishop?

Pohsib?

listens2glenn on June 24, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I would LOVE to be on your jury when you offer your, “The devil made me do it” defense!

MJBrutus on June 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Close friend works at a law firm, and has heard that defense tried once or twice. It’s quite a laugh-getter because it’s the ultimate example of pathetic cowardice.

Oh yea, and it didn’t work for that poor shlub either.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4