A Record 60% of Americans Say They Could Vote for an Atheist President

[David T]

.

"Every few years, Gallup asks Americans a version of this question: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be _____, would you vote for that person?”

Just about every time they’ve asked that question, “atheist” has been at the bottom of the list. (Atheists are unelectable! the headlines always say.)

In 2012, there was cause for celebration simply because more than half of those surveyed said they wouldn’t hold atheism against a politician. Then, in 2015, for the first time ever, “atheist” wasn’t the worst trait in a presidential candidate. A “Socialist” performed slightly worse. (Thanks, Bernie Sanders!)

In a poll released today, there’s been no change in the unpopularity of “Socialist” — only 47% of Americans would support that candidate — but “atheist” received another tiny jump. A record 60% of Americans say they would now consider voting for an atheist. It’s still next to last on the list. But it’s clearly becoming less of a stigma.

While just about every category Gallup asked about saw an increase in support — suggesting Americans are becoming comfortable with a more diverse group of candidates — “atheist” saw the smallest increase, an uptick of only 2%. But that may be because we just don’t hear that conversation discussed very much in the media. Without an atheist candidate to talk about, there’s no reason to bring it up.

Eighty percent of U.S. adults would vote for an evangelical Christian for president — up from 73% in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who would vote for a Muslim has grown from 58% in 2012 to 66% today.

Atheist presidential candidates would face more resistance from voters than candidates of other religious backgrounds. But Americans have warmed to the idea of an atheist candidate over the past several decades. The current 60% who would vote for an atheist is more than three times the 18% Gallup recorded in its first measure on atheist candidates in 1958.

​

But what I find particularly interesting are the strides atheism has made since 1959: A 230% increase in willingness.

source

.​

They already did, literally.... what you failed to recognize is labels on two different cans of hot air does make one tin can different than the other can of hot air. We love canned bologna as well.

 

[Jollybear]

Nobody ever learns anything "from their own mind." But one can use one's own mind to examine all that one is fed from all sorts of sources, and try to intelligently choose between them.

I went to Sunday school. I was taught every child's rudimentary Christianity. And on my own, using my own intelligence to examine what I was taught against what I observed, I concluded it was rubbish.

I was taught, like every child in my place and time was, that God loves and protects. And then I was beaten and nearly killed, more than once. God, mysteriously, didn't bother to show up. And the guilty parties went unpunished. And I was cut adrift from family and every other connection.

And do you think I would credit of that "God sees the little sparrow fall" bullcrap? Of course I wouldn't. If all God is doing is watching the sparrow fall (or me be nearly killed) and doing squat nothing about it, then what do I care if he thinks he's god. He's just a voyeur, a fraud, perhaps even a pervert. If he exists, I'll let you worship him. I never would.

Oh so, because theres suffering, you conclude theres no God. And thats "thinking for yourself"?

Id call that emotionalistic conclusions.

I think for myself and my conclusion is God exists despite suffering in the world.

 

[Woberts]

As a Trump supporter who is hardly religious, I'm glad the Evangelical Christians are so easily fooled and duped into giving us their political support for our POTUS.

That's a real mixed bag for me.

 

[Enoch07]

And such a model one as well. Jesus' heart swells with pride.

Well we can't all pretend to be as perfect as you pretend to be.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's quite pathetic how they say openly and with a strait face that someone whose so blatantly dishonest, greedy, prideful, lecherous, adulterous, etc. is a man of God. It serves to expose the fact that they've been full of **** all along.

This is why I have always believed, throughout my life, that very few people who profess to believe one religion or another, actually BELIEVE them, in their heart of hearts. I am thoroughly convinced that most people believe they believe, and mostly live their lives in contradiction to them.

Look at the hate, the vitriol in the US these days, mostly by those who call themselves Christian, and tell my how that hate and vitriol reflect Christ's wish that they "love their neighbour" or "love their enemy" or "feed my sheep." They don't...those are just words.

To which I respond, every creed, I don't care whose, is also just words. And if you don't act them, you don't believe them.

Belief informs action. I do not act in ways that contradict what I truly believe. I'm afraid far too many religious believers act in ways that definitively contradict what they think they believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh so, because theres suffering, you conclude theres no God. And thats "thinking for yourself"?

Id call that emotionalistic conclusions.

I think for myself and my conclusion is God exists despite suffering in the world.

There is a lack of reliable evidence for a god, so why believe in one?

Here, let me change it up a bit so that you might understand. You probably do not believe in pixies, right?

There is a lack of reliable evidence for pixies, so why believe in them?

 

[shmogie]

.

"Every few years, Gallup asks Americans a version of this question: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be _____, would you vote for that person?”

Just about every time they’ve asked that question, “atheist” has been at the bottom of the list. (Atheists are unelectable! the headlines always say.)

In 2012, there was cause for celebration simply because more than half of those surveyed said they wouldn’t hold atheism against a politician. Then, in 2015, for the first time ever, “atheist” wasn’t the worst trait in a presidential candidate. A “Socialist” performed slightly worse. (Thanks, Bernie Sanders!)

In a poll released today, there’s been no change in the unpopularity of “Socialist” — only 47% of Americans would support that candidate — but “atheist” received another tiny jump. A record 60% of Americans say they would now consider voting for an atheist. It’s still next to last on the list. But it’s clearly becoming less of a stigma.

While just about every category Gallup asked about saw an increase in support — suggesting Americans are becoming comfortable with a more diverse group of candidates — “atheist” saw the smallest increase, an uptick of only 2%. But that may be because we just don’t hear that conversation discussed very much in the media. Without an atheist candidate to talk about, there’s no reason to bring it up.

Eighty percent of U.S. adults would vote for an evangelical Christian for president — up from 73% in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who would vote for a Muslim has grown from 58% in 2012 to 66% today.

Atheist presidential candidates would face more resistance from voters than candidates of other religious backgrounds. But Americans have warmed to the idea of an atheist candidate over the past several decades. The current 60% who would vote for an atheist is more than three times the 18% Gallup recorded in its first measure on atheist candidates in 1958.

​

But what I find particularly interesting are the strides atheism has made since 1959: A 230% increase in willingness.

source

.​

I am a Christian. If my party nominated an atheist , and he/she vowed to see that religious liberty is preserved, and we agreed on other issues, I would have no problem voting for them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh so, because theres suffering, you conclude theres no God. And thats "thinking for yourself"?

Id call that emotionalistic conclusions.

I think for myself and my conclusion is God exists despite suffering in the world.

Then show me your thinking...make the case for a loving, omnipotent god that allows horrible deformities in newborns (I won't be so vulgar as to post images, but you know where to find them). Make a case for the absolutely immense number of parasites and diseases -- every one god created, in your view -- and how they express the love of your god.

Okay, never mind...let's take another tack. Let's make you think for yourself. Tell me this: what is your god, what does your god want, what will your god do?

That doesn't seem too hard...so go ahead, "think for yourself."

 

[shmogie]

This is why I have always believed, throughout my life, that very few people who profess to believe one religion or another, actually BELIEVE them, in their heart of hearts. I am thoroughly convinced that most people believe they believe, and mostly live their lives in contradiction to them.

Look at the hate, the vitriol in the US these days, mostly by those who call themselves Christian, and tell my how that hate and vitriol reflect Christ's wish that they "love their neighbour" or "love their enemy" or "feed my sheep." They don't...those are just words.

To which I respond, every creed, I don't care whose, is also just words. And if you don't act them, you don't believe them.

Belief informs action. I do not act in ways that contradict what I truly believe. I'm afraid far too many religious believers act in ways that definitively contradict what they think they believe.

Wait. Hate and vitriol is primarily by Christians ? That is nonsense.

Who beats up conservative college students, not Christians. Who destroys university property when their is a Conservative speaker on college campuses, not Christians. Who shoots up schools, Synagogues, and mosques, , not Christians. Who calls for confrontations and harassment of Conservatives, not Christian Conservative politicians.


You have decided on a narrative based upon your own subjective view, and make outlandish, unsupported statements as a result.

Perhaps you ought to take the time to find out what is going on, and who is responsible for it.

I agree that many alleged Christians certainly do not represent well what they say they believe, that has been a problem in the church from the very beginning.

However, don´t let that blind you to the fact that millions of Christians not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

 

[Jollybear]

There is a lack of reliable evidence for a god, so why believe in one?

Here, let me change it up a bit so that you might understand. You probably do not believe in pixies, right?

There is a lack of reliable evidence for pixies, so why believe in them?

But.....there IS evidence for a God, lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

But.....there IS evidence for a God, lol

Then why can't any theists post any?

And please note, I specified reliable evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wait. Hate and vitriol is primarily by Christians ? That is nonsense.

Who beats up conservative college students, not Christians. Who destroys university property when their is a Conservative speaker on college campuses, not Christians. Who shoots up schools, Synagogues, and mosques, , not Christians. Who calls for confrontations and harassment of Conservatives, not Christian Conservative politicians.


You have decided on a narrative based upon your own subjective view, and make outlandish, unsupported statements as a result.

Perhaps you ought to take the time to find out what is going on, and who is responsible for it.

I agree that many alleged Christians certainly do not represent well what they say they believe, that has been a problem in the church from the very beginning.

However, don´t let that blind you to the fact that millions of Christians not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Who are these people then? How do you know that the people you mentioned are not Christian? Sure, some of them are probably not Christian, but I doubt that all of them are not.

I have never seen a breakdown of the religions of all the perpetrators of the acts you mention. It is an interesting idea though. I bet there would be a lot of dispute over the results.

Another point, you mention only conservative targets. I feel certain you are not implying this, but one could read into this from your selective choice of targets, that Christians do attack liberal students, liberal politicians, etc. As a group, they do not, but just something that occurred to me when reading your post.

Christians make mistakes, they sin, the commit acts of violence, they commit crimes. Since, 70% if this country identify as Christian, it would be difficult to argue that all the crime arises from the other 30%.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who are these people then? How do you know that the people you mentioned are not Christian? Sure, some of them are probably not Christian, but I doubt that all of them are not.

I have never seen a breakdown of the religions of all the perpetrators of the acts you mention. It is an interesting idea though. I bet there would be a lot of dispute over the results.

Another point, you mention only conservative targets. I feel certain you are not implying this, but one could read into this from your selective choice of targets, that Christians do attack liberal students, liberal politicians, etc. As a group, they do not, but just something that occurred to me when reading your post.

Christians make mistakes, they sin, the commit acts of violence, they commit crimes. Since, 70% if this country identify as Christian, it would be difficult to argue that all the crime arises from the other 30%.

A No True Scotsman fallacy is so handy. The problem is that all sides can play that game. Muslim terrorists? No such thing. Those are not true Muslims. Name a group and one can deny that anyone that did anything wrong is not a member of that group.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then why can't any theists post any?

And please note, I specified reliable evidence.

Darn it. You got him started again. More telepathic ghosts of alien space Bigfoot having near death experiences. I'm outta here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A No True Scotsman fallacy is so handy. The problem is that all sides can play that game. Muslim terrorists? No such thing. Those are not true Muslims. Name a group and one can deny that anyone that did anything wrong is not a member of that group.

I was thinking of that and the fact that I do not know of any statistical breakdown of the religions of people committing the acts he referred to. I suppose it is possible that such detailed descriptive statistics exist, and he has seen them, but I doubt it. It would be unlikely that Christian perpetrators would be absent or in the minority if the list were compiled on data from this country or any nation were Christianity predominates.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well we can't all pretend to be as perfect as you pretend to be.

It's not about being "perfect", it's about hypocrisy, double standards, cherry-picking, etc. Evangelicals love to use the bible to condemn others despite failing to live by it themselves.

 

[Enoch07]

It's not about being "perfect", it's about hypocrisy, double standards, cherry-picking, etc. Evangelicals love to use the bible to condemn others despite failing to live by it themselves.

Nobodys perfect.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would vote for an atheist socialist.

 

[Jollybear]

Then show me your thinking...make the case for a loving, omnipotent god that allows horrible deformities in newborns (I won't be so vulgar as to post images, but you know where to find them).

I am up for the challenge!

Ok, there is a few reasons God lets babies be deformed.

1rst, you must realize that none of us have a right to life in Gods kingdom. In a government system like the USA we have a right to life, but, thats not what im talking about. In Gods universe, no one has a right to life. If we have life and health, they are gifts, not rights from God. You act like they are your rights. No, you cannot demand from God, what are his gifts to you. You must be grateful, not ungrateful.

2nd, death, disease and deformity are not evidence against a designer no more then a car, bus or building breaking down, getting weak or collapsing is evidence the car, bus or building had no engineer.

3rd, God letting disease, deformity, death, suffering occure in the world does TWO things.

First, it pushes us to LEARN and AQUIRE knowledge in order to make life better.

Second, it makes us apreciate good. Without evil and without ignorence, good and learning becomes devalued, depreciated and not held in respect. God cannot just hand us it all on a silver platter. That would not be a responsible parrent. Hed cripple us, take away our will and make the world static or weird.

4th, God is not COMPLETELY respondible for suffering. Many times humans cause there own suffering, either to themselves via bad choices or humans do bad to others, which God gave the power of choice.

In the case of pandoras box opening up for death and disease, Adam/eve opened that lid. God is PARTLY responsible for suffering. Not all of it. But, the part he is responsible for, refere back to my points above.

Make a case for the absolutely immense number of parasites and diseases -- every one god created, in your view -- and how they express the love of your god.

I just did. Refere to the above.

Okay, never mind...let's take another tack. Let's make you think for yourself. Tell me this: what is your god,

My God IS a infinate, eternal, concious, intelligent, prime energy, reality.

what does your god want,

He wants us to grow knowledge, be smart, love others, love ourselves. Yea, thats about it.

what will your god do?

He will continue to give the world freedom to do whats right or to do whats evil and stupid. If they do right, they prosper, if not, they learn the hard way.

However, he will hold each accountable for there choices at the end of there life and at the end of the entire world.

That doesn't seem too hard...so go ahead, "think for yourself."

Hows that for thinkin for me self?

 

[Jollybear]

Then why can't any theists post any?

And please note, I specified reliable evidence.

They have posted, ad infinitum.

But, what do you consider reliable?