Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[vorlon13]

I guess I'm a little suspicious of the polling.

There would be (IMO) folks actually announcing choices that they think are more PC approved than their actual views.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's not as if there is no secular foundation for such a position.

Try the UN preamble, for starters.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognition of inalienable human rights is not the same and having a foundation for them. It's kind of like your objections to intelligent design. Both ID and neo-Dawinists recognize the same complex systems but differ significantly on how those complex systems came to be. Wouldn't you say that ID proponents haven't adequately demonstrated that presence of a designer and that biological systems only appear to be designed? In other words, knowing "that something is" is not the same as knowing "why something is." So no, Khem, there is no secular foundation for human rights.

[vorlon13]

Not to sound like a trashy cunt, but I'm genuinely shocked Muslims rank higher than atheists

I will say overall though, I think it's a positive when most people clearly don't have a problem with the idea of a president who isn't white. 90+% of people saying they'd support a president who isn't white is pretty amazing (and I think debunks this idea that people voting for Trump was some kind of "whitelash").

[paulpablo]

It would have been interesting to see white, Asian, Hispanic and male on the list.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe because most people do not accept the definition of atheism as lack of belief, in which case they considered atheists opposed to the fundamental principle for justifying inherent human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there are no inalienable human rights.

The fact that there aren't any such things didn't bother them before this?

[Brian37]

Maybe because most people do not accept the definition of atheism as lack of belief, in which case they considered atheists opposed to the fundamental principle for justifying inherent human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there are no inalienable human rights.

Bullshit. But if you want to get into American history I can give you quotes from the Founders who railed against the concept of pulpit politics. 

"whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists" Thomas Jefferson. Now if he believed rights came from a God, it still would not matter to me. What mattered to him was the idea that an individual was just that. He was a Unitarian and a deist FYI.

Now even outside the issue of any nation, your claim is still tribal and just as messed up in wanting a social pecking order propped up by government. Our government defends freedom of religion, not by favoring one god over another or one sect over another, but common law. 

"Allah is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?
"Yahweh is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?
"Buddha is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?
"The Hindu creator God Brahama is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?

Even if I agreed with you that our rights as a species came from your particular pet deity claim, it still would not matter to me. Do you care to consider the political divisiveness this causes, even under the same label?  Have you ever read Jefferson's "Virginia Religious freedom act"? It became the prototype Madison Used to write the First Amendment. 

The founders were a variety of beliefs, mostly deists and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson out of all of them were the biggest critics of religion interfering in politics. All of them viewed your personal beliefs as yours. So in that context I am not required by law to believe my rights came from your pet deity regardless. 

The only thing the First Amendment protects is your right to follow a religion or believe in any god you want or no god. It DOES NOT set up a religious pecking order where Christianity gets to be the sole driver of the bus where all other religions are mere passengers or sit at the back of the bus. 

If the founders had intended on Christianity getting special status, they failed by not making it clear in the First Amendment or the oath of office "no religious test". I think they got both right, so if you want to blame anyone for the argument we are having now, blame them. I wont, I think they did the right thing.

Even if you got rid of all non Christians in America you would still have political divisions which exist today caused by religion. The Obama liberal black baptist voter believes that our rights came from the Christian god, but so does the Trump voting Republican baptist. See the problem it causes politically? Now the only thing that prevents us from looking like Sunni's and Shiites is the Constitution and secular protection of pluralism.

I could care less where you believe our rights come from, you still have no proof they are a result of your pet deity, nor does the law require me to buy your claim.

---

FYI, the Declaration of Independence is not law. It was a fuck you letter to the king. Our nation was not official until the last signer of the Constitution which IS LAW. Nowhere in the Constitution do you see the words "Christian, Jesus or Bible". They left those words out for a reason.

[Jehanne]

Maybe because most people do not accept the definition of atheism as lack of belief, in which case they considered atheists opposed to the fundamental principle for justifying inherent human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there are no inalienable human rights.

As everyone knows, the "god" that the Founders were speaking of was a deistic God; at least that's how Jefferson conceived of things.

---

It's not as if there is no secular foundation for such a position.

Try the UN preamble, for starters.

Recognition of inalienable human rights is not the same and having a foundation for them. It's kind of like your objections to intelligent design. Both ID and neo-Dawinists recognize the same complex systems but differ significantly on how those complex systems came to be. Wouldn't you say that ID proponents haven't adequately demonstrated that presence of a designer and that biological systems only appear to be designed? In other words, knowing "that something is" is not the same as knowing "why something is." So no, Khem, there is no secular foundation for human rights.

Regardless, ID is not science, which is why it should not be taught in science classes.  For starters, it is not falsifiable.

[Brian37]

Not to sound like a trashy cunt, but I'm genuinely shocked Muslims rank higher than atheists

I will say overall though, I think it's a positive when most people clearly don't have a problem with the idea of a president who isn't white. 90+% of people saying they'd support a president who isn't white is pretty amazing (and I think debunks this idea that people voting for Trump was some kind of "whitelash").

Why should you think a Muslim deserves less consideration than anyone else? What matters is what a politicians says after they file the legal paperwork to run, not before. I would not vote for fellow atheists if they were an economic Ayn Rand lover. I most certainly would vote for a Muslim who said what JFK or John Kerry said "I will not use my article of faith to legislate" and had the same economic views I do.

I think there are far too many people who assume any Muslim who migrates here could not be objective while in office. I also doubt very seriously if either party got a Muslim in office, suddenly they would drastically and suddenly have the ability to over turn our system of checks and balances. Shit, both left and right without them already constantly scream the other is going to kill our system. Right now I'd say you'd have more to worry about our system collapsing  under Trump than say having democrat congressman Kieth Ellison a Muslim being our president.

I think we as a pluralistic society should give everyone consideration without judgment until they run and even then your voting should be based on economic issue not the personal religion of the person running. 

But yea, according to those polls it seems the idea that only a white Christian should be considered is falling away. You wouldn't know that though with all the successful gerrymandering nationwide that makes it really hard to get someone none white and non Christian in office. It took forever to have JFK in office, back then Catholics were not widely trusted. But 58% saying they would vote fore a qualified atheist, trust me, compared to 20 or 30 years ago, that is a huge jump. I also think the more atheists who run, or even other minorities who run, especially in traditionally red states, you will see minority numbers get more equal too. Bad thing for white right wingers is that younger people aren't buying all the bigotry of their parents or grandparents generation.

[Amarok]

I will say overall though, I think it's a positive when most people clearly don't have a problem with the idea of a president who isn't white. 90+% of people saying they'd support a president who isn't white is pretty amazing (and I think debunks this idea that people voting for Trump was some kind of "whitelash").

This doesn't disprove whitelash in the least

[The Industrial Atheist]

Not to sound like a trashy cunt, but I'm genuinely shocked Muslims rank higher than atheists

I will say overall though, I think it's a positive when most people clearly don't have a problem with the idea of a president who isn't white. 90+% of people saying they'd support a president who isn't white is pretty amazing (and I think debunks this idea that people voting for Trump was some kind of "whitelash").

Why should you think a Muslim deserves less consideration than anyone else? What matters is what a politicians says after they file the legal paperwork to run, not before. I would not vote for fellow atheists if they were an economic Ayn Rand lover. I most certainly would vote for a Muslim who said what JFK or John Kerry said "I will not use my article of faith to legislate" and had the same economic views I do.

I think there are far too many people who assume any Muslim who migrates here could not be objective while in office. I also doubt very seriously if either party got a Muslim in office, suddenly they would drastically and suddenly have the ability to over turn our system of checks and balances. Shit, both left and right without them already constantly scream the other is going to kill our system. Right now I'd say you'd have more to worry about our system collapsing  under Trump than say having democrat congressman Kieth Ellison a Muslim being our president.

I think we as a pluralistic society should give everyone consideration without judgment until they run and even then your voting should be based on economic issue not the personal religion of the person running. 

But yea, according to those polls it seems the idea that only a white Christian should be considered is falling away. You wouldn't know that though with all the successful gerrymandering nationwide that makes it really hard to get someone none white and non Christian in office. It took forever to have JFK in office, back then Catholics were not widely trusted. But 58% saying they would vote fore a qualified atheist, trust me, compared to 20 or 30 years ago, that is a huge jump. I also think the more atheists who run, or even other minorities who run, especially in traditionally red states, you will see minority numbers get more equal too. Bad thing for white right wingers is that younger people aren't buying all the bigotry of their parents or grandparents generation.

An objective Muslim president is far more likely (if elected) then some want to think. American Muslims are less dogmatic than those in Muslim fundamentalist countries and are statistically more likely to accept gay marriage than Evangelicals.