Is Obama an atheist?

I don't know but the two examples you pointed out have little to do with one being an atheist.

I wish he was an atheist. We wouldn't have had the endless screeching and hand-wringing over the whole Jeremiah Wright thing.

I hope Fox News makes this woman the Joe The Plumber of this non-issue.

On the other hand, if he were atheist, he wouldn't be the president. I think we are better off this way.

Obama must be an athiest because he enjoys mustard on his burgers.

hahaha the perfect Christan. Let's hold off on Sainthood.

I just find it curious that the two issues you brought up could be easily attributed to a liberal Catholic or Lutheran theologian, yet you interpret them as atheism.

It is entirely possible to have faith in a deity yet not be a self-righteous douche about it. He could be one of those. There are tolerant Christians (and devotees of other faiths) in the world.

I love how the mother holds Christmas gifts as ransom for not believing in GOD..

Even is Obama is atheist, no way in hell would he come out and say it.

From everything I've heard, he's not an athiest.

There's absolutely no evidence to support this. None.

I think this theory is more likely to be true about McCain, or many past presidents, than about Obama. But it doesn't really matter.

Impossible! Every person who supports gay marriage must be atheist. Despite the fact that only 5% of Americans identify as atheist (maybe 12% if you count agnostics and, hell, let's throw in non-respondents for shits and grins), and 38% of Americans support it. Seems the majority of gay marriage supporters in this country are actually religious. Color me fucking shocked.

The logical lapses that occur when "rational" people talk about what religious people believe on this board are endlessly hilarious.

I'm an atheist and fairly big Obama fan.

But, trying to read the secret motivations of people you've never met is a waste of time. Whatever his private beliefs, they haven't warped his public policies in invasive, idiotic, bigoted or anti-scientific directions so far, and that's good enough for me. He can bow to the Keebler Elves when he goes to bed for all I care as long as he keeps it sane publicly.

It's nice to know that some on this board have an open mind about things. I'm what some would call religious but I don't believe anyone would call me a self righteous douche. Maybe just a regular douche but that's another matter.

I have my belief's but I feel others have the right to make their minds up on the matter using whatever methods they feel valid. I understand what the separation of church and state means for BOTH sides of the equation. And I really do not have a problem with gay marriage. My advice to the gays is don't ruin a good thing. You guys have made it this far why muck it up with silly ceremonies. However I also understand the tax and legal ramifications a marriage would have for gay/lesbian couples, and no, despite O'reilly's claims, I don't believe gay marriage leads to marrying turtles.

Bottom line, could we take a second to fathom that not all "religious" people are fundamentalists? Could you do that for dear old B_Metal?

It's interesting in that he's the only politician of any notoriety in the country willing to go out of his way to acknowledge nonbelievers in a non-derogatory fashion.

And, if he were smart, he wouldn't admit it after he left office either.

These days I find it more tiresome and disappointing, especially when the lapses come from otherwise intelligent people.

ETA: Incidentally, I'm happy and proud to be a member of the most despised minority in America. It pleases me to no end.

Connect the dots. Obama is not religious, at least not in a definably Christian way. I mean really? People question this?

What makes you think he's religious? Because in 1990, as he was gearing up to become a politician he joined a black church on Chicago's South Side? We'll golly, he MUST be religious, there's no other possible incentive for him to have made that move!

If you read his memoir religion is barely mentioned, and when it is it's either in the context of his exposure to many religions at a young age or when he joined Jeremiah's church, and there he talks about finding a community not God.

And frankly, he's too smart to be religious. DaveB, spare me.

Shhhh! What are you doing, giving the secret away so early? The culling is not supposed to begin until half way into the second term. You're going to ruin it!

Oh, go fuck yourself, Judd.

I'll say it again, these boards are infested with atheists with American Christian fundamentalist attitudes of the worst kind. It seems some people just can't escape the cultural aspect of their religious upbringing.

I watched this thread for 10 minutes, DaveB, and that is all I get. I'll admit you were concise but Judd deserved more than that.

Call it what you want Capitan, but there is an undeniable (inverse) correlation between religiosity and intelligence. That doesn't mean there aren't really smart people who are religious, and it certainly doesn't mean smart people aren't often spiritual. But organized religion and brains are largely at odds with one another, and statistics bare that out.

It's called ignorance.

But thankfully we don't have to validate our intelligence by the narrow minded.

I think belief in a god or gods is due more to an emotional need rather than a lack of intelligence. That emotional need trumps the rather large proofs against the existence of a supreme being. Intelligence is not an either/or proposition. Someone could be brilliant in one subject and ignorant in an other.

If you acknowledge that there are "really smart people who are religious," I'm not sure why you'd believe that someone can be "too smart" to be religious, regardless of what various IQ tests (which have proven to be oh-so-accurate and so totally not culture-specific) and polls on religion might suggest.

The majority of people in this country are religious. If we were to pick the intellectual elite across all disciplines, I'm fairly sure we'd not be best served by sticking to the fairly small minority of non-believers. Especially because I've seen the razor-sharp intelligence behind some of the atheist minds that post on this board, and you know what? Not impressed. Makes me want to side with Roger Ebert and just not call my lack of belief anything at all.

There's some truth here, but, just to be clear (not sure if you meant it this way), I don't think religious people are necessarily more emotionally needy than non-religious people, either. Their needs just manifest in a different way.

Also, I'm fairly certain that there aren't "rather large proofs against" the existence of God. There just aren't any good proofs for it. That's an important difference.

Beliefs absolutely come from need...they don't have to be religious beliefs, they could be political or philosophical beliefs.

As for the thread topic, the President can't be all things to all people. How much he talked about religion in his books is hardly an arbiter on his actual beliefs. He doesn't play it up and he doesn't play it down. He says he is religious, and I'll believe him at his word. That it clearly makes some people less capable of identifying with him sheds more light on their issues, not his.

There is a famous saying about the Normans, which the 'essence' of which can be said about most leaders in any culture, through out time, “they were great Churchmen, but poor Christians.” The names may be change, but the sentiment remain the same.

Incidentally, it's hilarious to contrast the, frankly, surprising tolerance on display in the thread about people who get turned on by dressing up as animals with the venom that this board reserves for people who go to church.

Y'know, like the president that most of us voted for.

Ah, but the difference is he's being a hypocrite about it. That makes it better!

I as not really pointing the finger at Obama. In fact the moniker of “they were great Churchmen, but poor Christians” belong more to the Bush camp then Obama.

You got me. Those two statements are incongruous. I took a little license in order to make a point, figuring only you would call me out on it. Fair enough though. Merely being intelligent, or extremely intelligent, is not enough information on which to judge whether or not someone is religious.

In Obama's case we have a lot of other sources to draw on. Speeches, books (and through them life experience) and policy. In none of these do we get a sense that this man is deeply religious, or that doctrine (as opposed to intellect and an intuitive sense of goodness) in any way guides him. The only evidence of Barack being religious are the occasional token Biblical quote and the fact that he joined a church during a politically opportune time. These things lead me to conjecture that he is not religious, though I haven't a clue where on the spectrum of spirituality his beliefs (in God) reside.

Now I get to nitpick. What I explained is that there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. That doesn't imply that intelligent people are, bye and large, non-believers nor does it imply that for the majority of them religion is completely absent from their lives. It actually implies very little, if anything, about non-believers. What it does imply is that intelligent people are, bye and large, less religious than the rest of the population. This relates to religious conviction, adherence to doctrine and dogma, and participation in religious rituals.

I didn't say Obama was a non-believer, only that I have a strong suspicion he's not religious. I don't think there's anything anti-intellectual about believing in God (a non-personal God anyway).

That wasn't a response to your post; just a general comment.

Wait, what?

I thought we settled this issue last year.

Obama's a closeted Moslem masquerading as a Christian. That's well established.

Why does this whole thing remind me of Robert Downey Jr from Tropic Thunder?

"I'm a atheist acting like a Moslem acting like a Christian!"

I didn't mean needy or weak. I think that religion fills an emotional component in many people's lives, the same way movies, books, etc. do.

As for the second point, I didn't word my post well. What I meant was that from a rational/scientific point of view something cannot be proved to exist unless there is information available that verifies to it's existence. Whether someone believes in manticores or Xenu doesn't mean that those things are real.

I try my best to be fair minded and hold back on the venom, but I think the tolerance you're seeing for furries stems from their lack of interference in other peoples lives. Sure they have a silly pastime but they aren't trying to teach their beliefs in schools or change our laws the way a lot of Fundamentalist Christians are.

The problem is that a lot of atheists on this board like to generalize and attack anyone who has any form of religious belief at all, whether or not what they are doing is hurting anyone else. That's just wrong.

Furries are not trying to impose their beliefs and vaules on non-furries, nor are they trying to get the furry creation story taught in public schools, and they do not tell non furries that they are going to furry hell.

I realize there is no furry Hell, or creation story- just trying to make a point. Furries do their own thing and don't bother anyone*, unlike alot of Christians in this country.


*still kinda creepy tho

I seriously and honestly feel so sorry for you guys that you even have to have discussions like this in the first place. I live in a secular democracy that's actually, you know, secular. Church and state actually IS seperate rather than basic lip service being paid to the idea.

A persons spiritual beliefs - as long as they don't try to foist them onto anyone else - are their own business.

Even including our politicians.

Whacky I know.

Eh, I still think it's less embarrassing to be a furry than to be a believer. Most of the time, anyway.

@capinkevey, @WereWolfGirl
When was the last time you saw a CHUD poster trying to push their religious beliefs down your throat?

And apologies to werewolf girl as I just read your post and basically repeated you.

Huh? That's not really the point. The point is that alot of posters here have issues with Christians for reasons I pointed out, and that's why you're seeing the "venom".

I'm pointing out the simplistic and offensive generalizations and the obvious hypocrisy in what you are saying.

Why is it hypocritical to say you only have a problem with people trying to force their beliefs down your throat? Furries don't do that, many Christians and atheists and people of other beliefs on this board and elsewhere do.

It would be generalizing to say that all Christians do that, but I specifically said 'a lot of Fundamentalist Christians' not 'Christians' not 'religious people' not even 'ALL Fundamentalist Christians'

I was merely trying to explain the lack of furry hate, non-interference in other peoples lives is key. As far as I know no furry has ever gone door to door to try to recruit more followers.

I'm not singling you out, but look at what was being said here "I don't think Obama is religious because he's too smart". Or the premise of this thread in the first place.

A good chunk of religious people are not bugging you, and the ones on this board are definitely not out to force you to convert. But when people complain about lack of tolerance and proselytizing, it would do a bit of good to analyze what their doing as well.

I'm a hypocrite for not wanting Creationism to be taught in schools? I was not aware of that, thanks for clearing that up.

And if you actually read the post, I did say ALOT- alot of Christians, it was a key word in the sentence. Never did I say all Christians, so I'm not sure how I'm generalizing. I have alot of devout Christian friends, and I went to Catholic schools basically my entire life. I don't presume to know the thoughts of every Christian in this Country.

You are very kind and Christ-like in your responses though.

You're not getting my point at all.

This is great. Now you are going to interpret my faith and tell me how I should behave, yet if I go into how you may be wrong;

a) We're going to be wasting time because you don't believe in it.
b) You're going to be annoyed because I'm going to be pushing my faith down your throat.

What I'm saying is that look at some of the generalizations made in this thread, and put things into perspective. You can still complain all day about the "bad" religious zealots you all know, but I find the whole thing ironic.

El Cap, honest question:

Do you get this upset at the zealots that misrepresent your faith to the rest of the world, drowning out the moderate peaceful christians?

(Im honestly not baiting or trying to be an asshole btw)