Speaking as an atheist I find this survey hilarious. I always wanted to be a menace to society, but who has the time?

I desperately hope we remain the rebel motorcycle gang of religious denominations and don�t become represented by some idiotic, whiney grievance lobby (although I guess revolting people like Madalyn Murray O'Hair and that moron who sued the schools over the pledge of allegiance have already gone there).

But come on, let�s face it, the percentage of Americans who have no real belief in God is way higher than 3%. People sign on to religion as a social construct, because they believe, rightly in my view, that it gives a formalized system of morality that is good for society and a good base for their children�s sense of right and wrong.

But how many believe, deep down, there is nothing after death? A lot more than 3%.

Amos:
As an atheist myself, I could not agree with you more. I am totally willing to tolerate any religion and anyone's religious beliefs. I do not seek to rail against them nor to I feel threatened by them. Sure there are militant atheists, but I think they are as disgusting as religious fanatics who attempt to impose their beliefs on you and me.

I was born into a Catholic family, raised attending a Baptist church and Sunday school, and went through confirmation in the Lutheran Church. None of it satisfied me and I never really bought the fairy tales and myths. But I don't begrudge others who do.

As for me, my Creator, was my mother and father. Pretty simple really.

Amos;

It's actually less, because even many who claim to be in the 3% actually believe in morality and the Declaration which can only be derived via God.

Well I wouldn't even classify the Bible's stories as fairytales, more like allegorical representations of philosophical profundities, many of which are important because they underlie the base assumptions of our entire civilization.

I�d certainly raise my kids to be Christian, if they choose to be religiously observant as adults is a matter for their personal conscience.

I dunno, oj. I'll bet there are way more than 3% who don't believe in either heaven or a father-figure god, which is pretty much the street definition of atheism. Now, I personally don't like that definition, but that's what most folks mean when they use the term. As I've often said on this site, I consider myself theistic (specifically, "panentheistic"), even though I meet that street definition of an a-theist.

That the morality and the Declaration can only be derived via God is a debatable concept that most people don't consider.

If you asked people flatly if they believe in a supernatural diety ordering the cosmos or if they really believed they'd live on after their body died, and they answered truthfully, more than 3% would say no. I'm guessing in America it would be near a quarter.

oj, I also would probably qualify as an atheist who at the same time believes that the Christian morality of the country is what makes the US superior to all others. What does that make me?

Amos:

No, it isn't. The entire Enlightenment project has been to try and find a substitute and there isn't one.

Andrew:

Richard Rorty terms that "free-loading atheism"--wanting all the benefits but none of the hard part. Perhaps a "vicarious Judeo-Christian" is less tendentious.

3rd(atheist that is). I am more than happy to be counted in the same company as Chris Hitchens in not believing in a supreme creator.

Pete:

Which is how he was fooled by Marxism. Are you converting when he does?

Hey I'm not freeloading. I support what I see as positive religions like Christianity and Buddism and I've said I'd raise my kids Christian.

Furthermore, people like me are much better outreach elements to the non-religious sections of our community than the Ned Flanders who regretfully inform them that they will be going to hell. I'm not a vicarious Judeo-Christian, I'm a pragmatic pseudo-christian.

I might note that, for a blog that believes the world was created in 6 days, you seem to have alot of atheists reading your site.

Amos:

The Internet is heavily young white males who lean libertarian and atheist until they grow up. It's why the bloosphere reflects such dismal understanding of the real world.

ghost:

Yes, the street definition has nothing to do with genuine atheism.

If you say so.

OJ,
Marxism being another religion, I'll pass.

Believers in a higher faith reject all of the other religions, except their own, as false. Atheists just take the process one step further and reject all of them.

If by some infinitesimal chance I get called before my creator to account for my life, at least I will have been true to myself. Most believers live their lives as if this existence is truly all there will be. They treat their holy texts as ala carte menus, with some parts to be rejected and others to be embraced. The 10 Commandments are treated as the 10 Guidelines.

I don't mean this as condemnation, I'm no saint, but I also don't believe that God is keeping track of my every action in a Celestial Permanent Record.

Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Self-interested lout that I am, this is actually the thing I find most distressing in this article. Curses!

Amos;

It's actually less, because even many who claim to be in the 3% actually believe in morality and the Declaration which can only be derived via God.

Assuming, arguendo, the truth of your assertion here, I don't see how that indicates anything. Human beings don't have to hold only beliefs that fit together into a coherent rational structure. The defining characteristic of an atheist is that he doesn't believe in gods. It doesn't say much about what else he may or may not believe, because he, as human individual, is perfectly capable of holding those other beliefs on an independent basis, even if they conflict with the absence of any belief in gods.

I don't think people in general dislike atheists; after all, you can't identify them from a distance. But the obnoxious ones, as with the obnoxious Christian and the obnoxious Muslim and the obnoxious Jew (and even the obnoxious Hare Krishna); well, nobody likes them. Amos is certainly right about Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Michael Newdow, who resemble Pat Robertson more than he would like to admit.

As for the 3% figure, it might include only the militant atheists and those who have a grievance with God and think they are sticking it to him by denying him in a poll. Surely the number of those who live their daily lives without thinking about God is higher than 3%. It may not be as high as 25%, but it is not so small as to represent some isolated pocket of post-modernists in Marin County and the enclaves of Manhattan.

"Vicarious Judeo-Christian" - I like it. But OJ, people are going to sue you for tagging them that way (just like people are always suing in NH over the motto).

I think ghostcat's definition fits agnosticism, not atheism which is an active belief that God does not exist rather than doubt and skepticism about whether He does.

Pete:

No, atheists just elevate themselves to gods.

Taeyoung:

So long as they accept the effects they can be good citizens, even if not trustworthy. Their personal psychological impediments to accepting that the authority they bow down to is beyond themselves don't matter that much so long as there aren't many of them.

I don't find this too surprising. O'Hare and the anti-Christian fanatics at the ACLU are the public face of atheism in the USA and who likes them? I am content to remain a free-riding cancer at the heart of the Republic.

Taeyoung, I managed to marry a nice Lutheran girl. Luckily, I had enough personality defects that my atheism was the least of the in-laws' worries.

I don't accept the Judean/Christian God as a given, but that doesn't mean that I reject the concept of a God. Whether that's atheism or agnosticism isn't important. Believing that there might be something more than meets the eye explains a lot and gives comfort to many, so what's it hurt.

A lot of what I accept as moral and true has come from writings of great philosophers over the ages and whether they are assigned the title of prophet or secular thinker isn't as important as what they had to say.

Our founding fathers took from these earlier thinkers and crafted a marvelous, even miraculous, document that has stood us well for a couple of centuries and if we can keep it from being destroyed will guide people for countless centuries into the future.

God, if and whoever or whatever you are, please keep on blessing America.

AOG may be content to be a free-riding cancer on the backside of the Republic but I'm sure not. My faith gets stronger every day. Why, just the other day I was sitting in traffic and I said to Jesus, I said "Jesus, get your !@#$% butt down here and get this line moving." And He did, it was great. Don't know what I did without Him all those years. So you Godless unbelievers had better all watch out.

Surely the quality of belief matters as much as the quantity. Or is Orrin just scrounging for votes as usual?

joe:

No, everyone needn't believe equally, but if everyone (or nearly everyone) doesn't believe then you head the way of Europe.

erp:

No, it hasn't. The philosophers acknowledge their God problem--no authority, no morality.

oj. I'm not sure to what you are referring? Yes, philosophers and prophets as well as us ordinary thinkers have "God problems." I can't figure it out to my own satisfaction, so I'm content to go along for the ride having determined that the morality in question appeals to me no matter its origin.

I've never been an envious person, but I do envy those of you who believe with all your hearts.

erp:

The God problem is that without one God you can't ground morality.

Well, the 'honest' philosophers at least admit the problem.

But most of them spent their lives trying to work around God, and by 1750 were pretty much in outright rebellion (denial, negation, whatever). Funny how Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger, and others spent so much time "thinking" about the God who supposedly isn't there.

This highlights the function of religion in modern society very effectively. In areas where a social structure is already well established and even stagnant, i.e. cities, especially European ones, religion suffers neglect and fades away (to be replaced by other and more self-indulgent creeds and fads, to be sure). In newer settings, especially growing suburbs, religion delivers a common bond around which people create a civil society.

For sure the religion of their kids' potential spouses means a lot to parents in suburbs. Whether it will continue to mean as much to their kids will depend largely on how socially dynamic and exposed to risk the kids' lives turn out to be.

Religion has been a durable and important element in American life precisely because it has remained adventurous and rapidly changing. It's a crutch, and a crutch can be very useful if you're going somewhere. You may not need it if you're going to sit on your ass and bitch all your life, as so many Europeans do.

No, atheists just elevate themselves to gods.

No can do. It's impossible to elevate oneself to something which does not exist.

The philosophers acknowledge their God problem--no authority, no morality

Irrelevant. Because God's word is interpreted by man (who is fallible), it is no more stable a foundation of authority or morality than any system deriving from man himself.

Mr. DeBenedetti:

Atheism has nothing to do with reality.

Yet morality has remained unchanged for thousands of years. I think you mean our willingness to hold ourselves to it.

I suspect people's definition of atheism is probably more the "angry atheist who is attacking my religious beliefs and removing manger scenes during Christmas" than the guy down the street who is "private" about his atheism.

I have known few "hostile atheists" myself, but those I did know were extremely insufferable. It's one thing to have unbelief, it's another thing to explicitly try to drive out all references to religion in the public square, an inquisitorial, intolerant attitude equal to any in history of other religions.

What's the number on agonstics?

Does everyone think they'd like religious symbols from all religions competing for space in the public square? Better keep them all out.

erp:

Of course all three monotheisms have a place in the public square.

Yet morality has remained unchanged for thousands of years.

Tradition is a wonderful thing, no? Not that religion is a necessary determinant of it however, else Christians would condone polygamy rather than condemn it.

No, God Created Man monogamous--any variance is literal disorder:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Edit: I should have wrote: Tradition is a wonderful thing, no? Not that God is a necessary determinant of it however; else Christians would condone polygamy rather than condemn it.

That's okay, it's still quite wrong.

OJ, nothing in your quote forbids polygamy, and God did / does nothing to condemn, discipline, prohibit, or rebuke his followers for the practice.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

One plus one = 1

The commandments likewise require one man and one woman.

The ten commandments say nothing that forbids polygamy. Are you referring to some other set? Likewise, no portion of the Bible I'm aware of obviates the understanding of God's followers that one plus one plus one [etc.] = 1 as well.

every reference is to wife.

You're nicely illustrating the point though. The morality is unchanging but folks who don't wish to be bound by it simply ignore or twist it. there is no common sense reading that supports your desire.

My desire? And what would that be?

To find moral permission for relationships other than one man and his wife in God's Creation.

I have no desire for polygamy, but the Bible permits it nonetheless, else it would proscribe the practice as it does with homosexuality, adultery, and divorce. Christian monogamy comes from Roman tradition, not God's word.

No, it comes from God's Creation. To read the Word any other way is to indulge your own desires.

Heh. My desire is for the Bible to prohibit polygamy. Unfortunately, it does not. Unlike many however, I do not allow desire to prohibit understanding.

To the contrary, reading the text in any way other than to require monogamy forsakes understanding. There's no reason you should accept what the Bible says if you don't believe in God and His Creation--but you can't make it say whatever you want.

The need of folks to do so though is a fascinating illustration of their psychological need to escape morality.

I'm not making the Bible say anything - quite the contrary - I'm simply pointing out what it doesn't say. It no more prohibits polygamy ("one flesh" protestations notwithstanding) than our founding documents prohibited slavery ("all men are created equal" and "rights [to] ... liberty" declarations notwithstanding).

Yes, the Constitution expressly allows for slavery, as the Bible does not polygamy. We created a Republc that was ordered around slavery. God Created a Universe ordered around monogamy.

The rest is your personal desire. It's self-indulgence, not theology.

I suspect if polygamy was (at best) morally neutral, Abraham, Samson, Solomon, and even David would not have been 'exposed' in their stories as being somewhat foolish (or downright sinful) in seeking (or just finding) more than one woman. Jacob seems to be an exception, although being "the supplanter" and living virtually in exile for perhaps 20 years may be considered problematic enough. Plus, the domestic difficulties between Rachel and Leah cannot be ignored (just like the gulf between Sarah and Hagar).