White Atheist Support for Obama is Dwindling

I don't know how anyone could support a radical thinker like Obama.He offers no hope for a better America. He offers bigger gvt., bigger spending, bigger debt.

I don't know how anyone can consider Barack Obama to be a radical thinker. If he is losing support amongst secularists his lack of radical thinking may be the reason why. America needs a little radical thinking right now.

I don't think so.

ie unless you mean paying our way. Now that would be radical!

Norman

You lost your chance when Ron Paul closed his campaign, let the rhetoric rest so that we can get on with the election as it presently stands. Wishful thinking will not resurrect Paul's ideology at this point in time.

The other option for paying your way is to raise taxes to realistic levels comparable to other countries. But no American politician will tell voters this simple truth.

"If he is losing support amongst secularists his lack of radical thinking may be the reason why."

I totally agree!

Interesting use of the term "freethinker" at the end, Chelsea. As you know, I am a man of faith and I certainly consider myself to be a freethinker. But I digress.

As to the Gallup report, I am reminded of the old Mark Twain refrain:. There are lies, dammed lies and then there are statistics.

"Interesting use of the term "freethinker" at the end"

Agreed, & I did a post way back titled "Are Atheists Really Free-thinkers?" as many view atheist beliefs beyond mere free-thinking, and moreso, as radical. I also consider myself a free-thinker, which to me means allowing everyone to their own beliefs without judgement, and not getting bent out-of-shape at others' religious displays because I may not agree with their beliefs. Plus, I don't give a flying f*** on whose property it sits, public, private, or otherwise. This pissin' & moanin' about removing religious symbols because 1 person is offended really irks me, and flies in the face of free-thinking~more like, wayward thinkng, "I don't share in your beliefs, therefore you can't express yours freely."

Definition for free thinker:
Web definitions:
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason.

It's really that simple.

P.s. -- given the actual definition of a freethinker.. a religionist calling themselves a freethinker is as ridiculous as a fish calling itself a lion.

You're wrong there, Chelsea. There is no inherent conflict between science and religion or faith of any kind. One can be completely committed to logic and reason and still have faith. I think where you may have erred is in accepting the predominant expressions of religion as the only possible manifestation there of. Which is perhaps the worst effect that narrow minded fundamentalism has on society, to give all belief systems a bad name.

That's not MY definition, Rory.

That's simply the definition.

Take it up with Merriam Webster and Princeton EDU

This is reminding me of a scene from one of my favorite British sitcoms... "Coupling.."

The character Jane (who was my favorite! lol) was fighting with her shrink about vegetarianism.... and Jane made a comment along the lines of the following:

"I think being a vegetarian means you don't have to say no... even if it's to eating meat."

0_o...

I'm paraphrasing of course. But it was a hilarious scene....

and not only was it just comically brilliant, but it was also a dig at how some people choose to define terms, ideals and cultures as they see fit -- even if they are completely and utterly in error.

I have no problem with the definition you provided for a freethinker. But I disagree with your extrapolation from that definition that a person of faith cannot also be someone who forms opinions based on science, logic, and reason. It suggests to me that you have let the Christian Right define all faith for you.

There's another half of that definition, though Rory, and you obviously didn't google it to see it..

and that other half reads as follows: "especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma ..."

faith is the opposite of logic.

I want to clarify, that whether youre a person of faith or not -- I have nothing against you..

but I'm a pretty literal person who uses vocabulary according to its definitions -- not my interpretation of what I feel the words should mean.

so no offense

No offense taken. I am pretty hard to offend.

The definition says "especially", not "exclusively", which seems to me to be your interpretation.

Also, having faith does not have to mean holding to a dogma.

The definition of faith is "belief based on no proof"

that in and of itself denotes lack of logic...

but you're right about the dogma thing

Chelsea, your "vegetarian" example points to something rather important that Rory refers to indirectly, but doesn't elaborate on. Claiming to be a "vegetarian" while eating meat is ridiculous not only because if we look up the definition of "vegetarian", we can see that it excludes eating meat, or because we know the history of the vegetarian movement and what its representatives believe. It's ridiculous because we can see the root of "vegetable" in the word, and we know it means plants. The root, in other words, is transparent to English speakers, and therefore the essential meaning shines through. It is less likely to be lost with time than with a non-transparent root (say, "shambles", or "menagerie"), and it has a strong sensory/emotional effect when contradicted, like in your example.

My point is that the roots in "freethinker" are even more obvious: such a person thinks for herself and refuses to accept the dominant opinions and ideologies of her society or organization or environment without an honest critical examination. The definition you provide was forged in a historical context in which the dominant and enforced ideology demanded respect for the monarch and for the church - therefore, freethinkers were generally anti-royalist and anti-clerical and to varying degrees, anti-religious. But to call a loyal follower of the Marxist orthodoxy in a communist country a "freethinker" would be exactly as ridiculous as the meat-eating vegetarian, even though that follower is a bona fide atheist and claims to form his or her opinions on the basis of science, logic, and reason. (Marx did, didn't he?) It's obvious, I think, that the meaning of the word "freethinker" cannot be made independent of the historical context, and that in fact the defining of a priori required or em>a prioribanned beliefs is contrary to its essential meaning.

0_o

whatever you say man -- I don't force-philosophize.

I think that the Athiest are the strongest people in favor of Obama, not the sloughing ones. They aren't guided by their doctrine, or superstitions. They realize that if the Reps get in office. The country is going down the tubes the same way as the countries in Europe that are trying to balance their budgets by cutting back on everything. If you take jobs and earning power away from the middle class, no goods or services are bought. It is the middle class that rules the economy. Obama knows that. The Reps have put us in this bad economy, and they are claiming to be able to dislodge it by doing the same stuff they have been doing all the time they are in office.

Exactly right.

Can't argue with sane logic !

Thanks for the article, Chelsea. As to my opinion ... As a religious skeptic/freethinker, I can say that Obama has not lived up to my expectations, nor, as a side note, to those of my husband (also a political progressive and religious skeptic). Nonetheless, the "I'm not concerned about the very poor," strapping-the-dog-on-the-roof, my-dressage-horse-losses-double-your-yearly-salary alternative for Amercia--oops, make that America--is one that is infinitely more frightening and will be a bane to this country for many years to come, should we foolishly choose R. Money and his VP choice as our next leaders.

Very true.

yeah, I am an atheist, and I am pretty much in the Obama camp.

Every election poses a choice between two people. Do I consider Obama perfect in every way? Nope. Is there enough shared territory that I can vote for him? Yes. Is there any shared territory for me with Romney? Not really. I realize that he was a moderate politician as Governor of Massachusetts, but in the 2012 election cycle he has had to cultivate the Tea Party by taking irrational positions on taxation. I am not going to play the sap and vote for Romney expecting to get the earlier version of Romney, because he has to dance with those that brung him. Moderation is out the window for Romney now- He has been joined-at-the-hip to Donald Trump in recent weeks, and that is intolerable.

It's not just atheists! Democratic representatives aren't going to be seen with the President!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/steve-israel-democrats-skip-convention-/1#.T-tIbRf0irl

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/09/21/obama-losing-jewish-voters-over-fuzzy-israel-support-

Losing Jewish support too.

Obama girl no longer likes him either.......

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/obama-losing-support-of-obama-girl/1#.T-tJHRf0irk

Hey, I wrote an article about the Obama Girl before the 2008 election!

Mellman (linked article): "Urge an end to tax deductions for contributions to religious institutions." Ha ha! Yes! This is a political strategy that is sure to win back the 10% of the portion of the 13% who supported the president last time. And of course, the backlash among 80-something percent of his support from people of faith will come nowhere near canceling that effect. Chelsea, I have no reason to suspect that you're on drugs. But your source seems to be smoking some really good stuff.

And yes, now that you've digested my comment, I acknowledge that he is making a completely different point about campaign strategy, and one that you completely missed. But I know you're under a lot of deadline pressure.

It is hard for me to believe that the quoted statistics of a 10% loss in the Atheist American voters support to be totally accurate. It would be my unsubstantiated guess/opinion (as the author indicates) that the statistics were in some way munipulated, (as some such research statistics are) in order to achieve and project the results the reseacher wanted to put forth.

I have answered a few political surveys by phone, Scott, in my day, but nobody ever asked me if I was an atheist. I have been asked my income, my political party, my education, but never if I am an atheist.

Likewise Chris !