Our Godless Constitution

[shanek]

So, you still claim that atheists are considered worthy of a public office,

Never claimed it. Stop lying.

But we have already established that the claim is true. You can hardly go anywhere without being presented with God.

But that is not your claim. Your claim is false. This country's political structure is in no way founded upon the Christian or any other religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Never claimed it. Stop lying.

...

But that is not your claim. Your claim is false. This country's political structure is in no way founded upon the Christian or any other religion.

We are not getting anywhere. You insist that we debate on your terms alone, and I refuse to do that: It is merely an attempt of designing the debate so you will win, no matter what reality says.

One could call you a Debate-Creationist: The outcome is given in advance, so screw the facts.

Ah, well...I've presented my case, and you can take it or leave it.

 

[ceo_esq]

It's still there.

Many thanks.

 

[Thanz]

But as I said, there's a difference between saying you'll do something in a hypothetical scenario and actually being faced with that decision.

As a general proposition - that people may behave differently in a real life situation than they say they would in a hypothetical, I'd agree with you. I disagree with you on the specifics of this poll, however. If anything, I would think that the number who would vote for an athiest in real life may be slightly lower.

The poll is essentially asking people to own up to their prejudices. I think that in general, people don't want to be thought of as prejudiced or bigoted. For example, someone might say that they would vote for a woman in order to avoid being labelled as sexist in the hypothetical, but in real life they would not vote for the woman. It may not even be overt - the prejudice may manifest in ways that make the person believe they are deciding on some other basis, even if a truly objective analysis of that basis reveals it to be without merit.

It would be naive to think that prejudice has been overcome to the degree suggested by the poll. I think that the 90%+ numbers are unfortunately too high for real life. What it does show, however, is that there is a recognizable social stigma attached to those prejudices that makes people reluctant to admit them, even if they have them. That can only be a good thing.

Which brings us to athiests and gays. The animosity towards gays is quite evident when one looks at the controversy surrounding gay marriage. However, the fact that gay marriage is even being considered is a huge step forward for the homosexual community - both in terms of actual rights and as an indicator of tolerance.

It would appear though that people still find it acceptable to be prejudiced against athiests. Over half the people asked said they would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate if he were athiest. I can see reasons why someone would lie and say they would vote for an athiest - to avoid being labelled a bigot - but I cannot see why someone would lie if they actually would vote for an athiest. It sucks, but there it is. Given the two party system, this poll and the most recent election results, I would guess it would be at least 50 years before you actually even get an athiest nominated for president by either major party. In short, at least for president, I doubt any of us will be alive to see an athiest run for president with any chance of winning.

 

[shanek]

The poll is essentially asking people to own up to their prejudices. I think that in general, people don't want to be thought of as prejudiced or bigoted.

Of course, and I have no doubt that some of the people who answered that it wouldn't make any difference really would consider it a problem. But it seems equally obvious to me that many people who honestly think it's a problem (and maybe don't even think about it being prejudiced or bigoted) might very well vote for an atheist if everything else about him matched what they want in a candidate.

So, which one outweighs the other?

Over half the people asked said they would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate if he were athiest.

Yes, but again, people often say one thing in a hypothetical, completely meaning it, and yet do something else when faced with the reality of the situation.

I can see reasons why someone would lie and say they would vote for an athiest - to avoid being labelled a bigot - but I cannot see why someone would lie if they actually would vote for an athiest.

We aren't talking about lying. We're talking about two totally different situations. And people respond differently to different situations.

In one situation, we have a hypothetical candidate and the only thing we're told about him is that he's an atheist (other than the vague "otherwise qualified" thing). We're told nothing else about him, and nothing whatsoever about his opponent(s).

In another situation, we have a real-life atheist candidate where the person in question may not even realize he's an atheist because it might not even come up, but who may have all sorts of other things in common with the voter, such as political philosophy, party affiliation, similar background, etc. Here, the person is given a lot more information about the candidate than his religious affiliation (and no one may even be making a big deal about that), and of course they also know about his opponent(s) and, even if they are prejudiced against atheists, may consider him the lesser of two evils. How many people vote on exactly that criteria?

I see it as being the same issue as makes economists evoke ceteris paribus. This effect will take place, as long as all other things are equal. If all other things are equal, the person will vote for a religious person over an atheist. But how often are all other things equal?

Also given the fact that we haven't actually seen the issue come up to know what would happen. Now, I'm not saying there's a good chance we'll have an atheist President in 2008 or anything, just that I'm not comfortable assuming what will happen based on this one poll.

 

[shanek]

I found the original Gallup question, although you have to subscribe to see the results:

http://institution.gallup.com/docum...anced=0&SearchConType=1&SearchTypeAll=atheist

You can see the full question in this search:

http://institution.gallup.com/search/results.aspx?SearchTypeAll=atheist&SearchConType=1

As reported on skeptic.com, 49% said "Yes"...but there's a third option, "Don't know." How many people responded with "Don't know"? The implication here is being made that 51% would not vote for an atheist, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If even 2% answered "Don't know," then it's possible that 51% might vote for an atheist President.

 

[CFLarsen]

As reported on skeptic.com, 49% said "Yes"...but there's a third option, "Don't know." How many people responded with "Don't know"? The implication here is being made that 51% would not vote for an atheist, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If even 2% answered "Don't know," then it's possible that 51% might vote for an atheist President.

You cannot induce that. Why should all of the "Don't know"s shift to the same side? That is a completely illogical assumption.

Piss-poor thinking skills here.

 

[Kerberos]

I found the original Gallup question, although you have to subscribe to see the results:

http://institution.gallup.com/docum...anced=0&SearchConType=1&SearchTypeAll=atheist

You can see the full question in this search:

http://institution.gallup.com/search/results.aspx?SearchTypeAll=atheist&SearchConType=1

As reported on skeptic.com, 49% said "Yes"...but there's a third option, "Don't know." How many people responded with "Don't know"? The implication here is being made that 51% would not vote for an atheist, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If even 2% answered "Don't know," then it's possible that 51% might vote for an atheist President.

Whether 49% or 51% might vote for an atheist is irrelevant. Even if 51% might vote for him he'd still be a no-hope candidate because a portion of the 49, 51 or however many % who might vote for him would choose not to for some other reason such as not agreeing eith him politically.

 

[Lurker]

Yes, but again, people often say one thing in a hypothetical, completely meaning it, and yet do something else when faced with the reality of the situation.

While I agree there is some truth to what you say here, if we take it to be an absolute wouldn't it logically follow that all polls are meaningless?

I agree there may be some minority that may do something else than how they responded to the poll but I would imagine it is small and perhaps has a tendency to balance out as some say "1" and do "2" while some say "2" and do "1".

I'm not ready to abandon the whole idea of polling yet, myself.

Lurker

 

[shanek]

You cannot induce that. Why should all of the "Don't know"s shift to the same side?

Who said they should be? I said "might," as in potentially.

Piss-poor thinking skills here.

Yes, yours are very piss-poor...

So where is your evidence "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being"?

 

[shanek]

Whether 49% or 51% might vote for an atheist is irrelevant. Even if 51% might vote for him he'd still be a no-hope candidate because a portion of the 49, 51 or however many % who might vote for him would choose not to for some other reason such as not agreeing eith him politically.

But still, it puts the assumption completely to lie.

The conclusion is devastatingly clear: As long as you have a religious faith of some sort, people will vote for you. If you don't, you can't win.

(emphasis mine)

That was Claus's claim, and he has no evidence whatsoever for it.

 

[shanek]

While I agree there is some truth to what you say here, if we take it to be an absolute wouldn't it logically follow that all polls are meaningless?

No, it just shows that there are limitations to what polling can actually tell us. And that is absolutely true.

I agree there may be some minority that may do something else than how they responded to the poll but I would imagine it is small and perhaps has a tendency to balance out as some say "1" and do "2" while some say "2" and do "1".

In which case, we can say that on the balance about half of all Americans (as I'm sure the margin of error for the poll was at least 3%) would be willing to vote for an atheist President. Which, again, puts the claim completely to lie. Especially considering that you don't need a majority of the popular vote to become President.

 

[Kerberos]

But still, it puts the assumption completely to lie.

(emphasis mine)

That was Claus's claim, and he has no evidence whatsoever for it.

It might be Claus's claim, but it isn't mine, sure an atheist could win against a suficiently poor opponent, but I do not believe that an atheist could win against an opponent, who is even remotly mainstream.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who said they should be? I said "might," as in potentially.

As potential as every American will vote for the same person.

Your critical thinking skills are piss-poor, because you don't consider the alternative possibility: That the "Don't know" might swing the other way and vote for an atheist.

Or maybe you did, but simply chose not to present it? If that is the case, then your critical thinking skills are non-existent.

I'd like to know which it is:

A) You didn't consider the alternative possibility.

or

B) You deliberately left out the alternative possibility.

A or B, shanek?

 

[CFLarsen]

But still, it puts the assumption completely to lie.

What kind of lousy argumentation is that? You are shown wrong, but still claim that you are right?

That was Claus's claim, and he has no evidence whatsoever for it.

The evidence is very clear.

 

[shanek]

It might be Claus's claim, but it isn't mine, sure an atheist could win against a suficiently poor opponent, but I do not believe that an atheist could win against an opponent, who is even remotly mainstream.

Again, that's assuming all other things are equal. See my comments on that above.

 

[Lurker]

In which case, we can say that on the balance about half of all Americans (as I'm sure the margin of error for the poll was at least 3%) would be willing to vote for an atheist President. Which, again, puts the claim completely to lie. Especially considering that you don't need a majority of the popular vote to become President. [/B]

So, an atheist can only hope to get at most 50% of the vote and you think he stands a chance of winning?

Just for comparison, how many people would vote for a Christian? My bet is it would be around 99%. That's a big difference. I agree with Kerberos that it would have to be a terrible candidate to lose to an atheist. Terrible

I think you are somewhat influenced by your association here at JREF. I know I was back at the PResidential election. Subconcsously I had started thinking of JREF as a small cross-section of society and thought the liberal and moderate majoirty here at JREF that spoke against Bush represented the US at large. I started thinking Kerry might win. It did not and I realized the mistake I had made.

I think you subconsciously make the same mistake; that the people at JREF (many atheists) and their "enlightened" attitude towards religion as being unimportant represents the US. Sadly, they do not. As an American I can confidently tell you that in my opinion, an atheists does not stand a chance of being elected. I am willing to bet that we will not see it in my lifetime.

Lurker

 

[CFLarsen]

Lurker,

Every now and then, I have an author who really, really wants to have his/her article published in SkepticReport, but prefers not to have his/her name publicised with it. They simply don't want their friends, colleagues and neighbors to know that they don't believe in God, or even are skeptical of, say, creationism.

And I can understand that, having lived in the US as well.

About a year ago, I and another Danish skeptic had a brief, but pleasant meeting with a skeptic from the US on visit to Scandinavia. She was seriously considering emigrating from the US, simply because she was fed up with the harrassment she got from her colleagues and neighbors. They were even dumping garbage on her lawn!

And why? Because she, in a careless moment, let on that she was an atheist.

Sure, it's anecdotes. Shanek can feel free to dismiss them. That would only prove that his anecdotes are evidence, but others' aren't.

 

[Lurker]

Claus:

Anecodotal yes, but prevalent. As I think I have mentioned to you before, I am a Christian but a strong defender of atheism. My Christianity has been questioned numerous times because I have defended atheists from being called immoral and other vituperative attacks.

I also have a close friend who is an atheist. While I will be the first to admit he is a bit combative about his position, he has learned to not advertise the fact that he is an atheist. Too many people trying to convert him, or snidely insult him, or look down their noses at him. It just became a hassle for him.

Lurker

 

[shanek]

So, an atheist can only hope to get at most 50% of the vote and you think he stands a chance of winning?

A person can get elected President with a vote total less than 20% of registered voters.

I think you are somewhat influenced by your association here at JREF.

I've made my influences and experience clear. No one has refuted them.