I understand what you are saying, and would acknowledge the validity of your point, with a caveat: I'm almost as uncomfortable with the dogma of atheism (OED def - atheist: "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God") as I am with any theistic dogma.

I would much rather have leadership self-identifying as agnostic (OED def - agnostic: "One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing").

For all his PNAC neo-con flaws, Rumsfeld basically was correct when he said "there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Our country has suffered long from too much faith and too little skepticism; too much self-assuredness; too little inquisitiveness. Strange though it is to say of a country that found a way to go to the Moon, we have some really big blind spots and a general unwillingness to shine a light in the dark corners of our national psyche.

Leadership that's willing to say, "I don't know, but I am open to new information" (and a polity willing to accept that) would be a refreshing change.

Hmm. There are prominent historical examples of atheist regimes that have displayed little evidence of the consciousness and sensitivities you posit. There are also communities of Christians who do not exploit the myth of an afterlife as an excuse for shortchanging the temporal world.

Don't get me wrong: I think there are atheists who would make fine presidents. There is a serious problem with fundamentalism crowding out rational empiricism in American governance. But I don't think the issue is ever going to be as simple as an atheist/theist litmus test.

Any time Cindy - any time!

How many of our leaders are actually true believers, do you think, and how many are 'believers' because it garners them votes? How many of the people you talk to each day don't believe in any sort of religion but are discouraged from admitting it because of the repercussions of doing so?

Heck, I'm pretty sure there is only only one federal elected official who is an atheist and that's Pete Starks, a representative from Oakland, CA. (The first ever, I believe.) The next highest offices that have been located were school board members, if I recall. Atheists and agnostics represent 10% of the population, and make up 1/435th of Congress. If there were only a single Jewish congressional representative, the 2.5% of Americans who self represent as Jewish would be outraged (instead there are 41: 12 senators and 29 representatives.) We (atheists) respond with garbage like, 'the country isn't ready for atheist leaders,' and accept it. Surely some of the other 434 members of Congress are non-believers, and perhaps they should have the guts to say so.

Amen tho this, brother. I'm currently reading a book by religious scholar Karen Armstrong (who's "A History of God" everyone of every creed (or non-creed) should read). One of the first pages mentions the need for myth as a way of providing an explanation of our place in the world, and that without it many people feel disconnected with the world around them, as if they don't belong. Myth, if not exactly filling that void, at least helps to explain it.

I've been an atheist since birth, affirmatively so since 12 or 13, and while I still often feel disconnected to people, I have never felt disconnected from the world. The narrative of science is so amazing, expansive, and awe inspiring, and so inclusive of all things under the sun (and beyond it), that no religion past or present can even approach the level of connectedness one feels to the universe. Pick your religion, doesn't matter which one, and it's vision is dwarfed by the vastness of the cosmos envisioned through science. The concept of god is tiny compared to the scope of science. To appreciate the beauty of the cosmos through science is never-ending and mind-boggling, to approach the same thing through the concept of "god did it" is empty and self-limiting.

And the truly cool thing about science? It is that, unlike religion, it just keeps getting better.

I am surprised that so many people still make the mistake that atheism is a belief. It is not.

"Theism" mean "belief in a supernatural god."

"a" is a prefix meaning "without"

"A-theism" mean "without a belief in a supernatural god."

If you come from a tribe in the deepest parts of the jungle and your tribe has no supernatural belief system, you are, by definition, an a-theist. When you are born, up until the time you can understand the concept of god, you are an a-theist. Atheism is the default position for all living creatures, including humans. You need not make any decision to be an atheist; it is not you plus something else.

Certainly there are those who "believe god does not exist", but that is a narrow definition of the term and fits only a small subset of atheists. You can not understand what atheism is until you understand that it is not a belief.

Think of it this way: atheism only exists in contrast to theism. If the concept of god did not exist on this earth -- if nobody had ever heard of god, nobody believed in god, no religions, worships, or supernatural beings -- then there would be no atheists. No one would say they are an atheist because there would be no theists to contrast themselves to. To say that these people, who are atheists by definition, held a belief about god is nonsensical; it is equal nonsensical to say that real-world atheism is a "belief". It is not.

I don't care if they're religious...

as long as they PRACTICE what they PREACH:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Don't bear false witness."
"Don't kill people."
"Blessed are the poor."

I'm so tired of religious hypocrisy I could just scream.

Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a dogma. It is a LACK of belief in supernatural beings, a LACK of adherence to a set of required rules because they set down by a particular religion and LACK of accepting a set of stories/myths as factual without good, solid evidence.

Many atheists (and religious people, for that matter) derive their sense of right and wrong from the humanistic values and laws of our civil society.

Many religious people assume atheists have no morals, because they have no God threatening them with punishment if they screw up. I think it's important for more atheists (agnostics, non-blievers, non-theists, supernatural-frees or whatever people feel comfortable calling themselves) to come out just to show religious believers what good citizens most atheists are - and that we've been living harmlessly among you all along.

Bertrand Russell answered, when he was asked if he were an atheist, said in so many words that it all came down to just who was asking the question. If the questioner was an educated person, Russell said that he was truly an agnostic, as existence had not been proved or disproved yet, but should the man on the street ask to understand his point of view, Russell would answer that he was an atheist.

Bush, McCain, Palin, et al dance to a common God's drum beat of Greed and the Love of Greed. If any common citizens anywhere in the world must pay the ultimate price for them and their God to hold power, then their howling mob happily have said so be it. They and all that follow in this teaching will never bend from the ritual God dance until disaster overtakes civilization, and then if any are left to pick up the pieces a new God will be elected. That in a nut shell is our history. Like it or not that is how Jesus was elected God in 324AD.

To hold power over people the rulers need the element of fear. All human cultures throughout all the time frames of our past tell the same tale. It is a simple formula. The ruling class are few, the ruled are many. The ruler can not control everyone all the time. Lincoln's, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time," could have included the reason possible for the first two truths because of the election of Jesus and existence of atheists for his last comment, "But not all of the people all of the time."

I am surprised that so many people still make the mistake that atheism is a belief. It is not.

"Theism" mean "belief in a supernatural god."

"a" is a prefix meaning "without"

"A-theism" mean "without a belief in a supernatural god."

I would say most people hear "atheist" and think confirmed atheist, a Madeline Murray O'Hare (sp?) militant atheist.

I'm an agnostic, and always make a point to specify that I am NOT an atheist.

I think an agnostic is more likely to behave morally, following the Pascals Wager line of thinking. i.e. whether or not God exists, it is safer to behave as if he does.

I'd go so far as to say I think agnostics are more likely to behave morally than religious people, either due to their natural open-mindedness, or because they aren't sure in therir belief that they are going to heaven no matter what, as long as they do what their god says is right.

Anyway, crazed, getting back to your original argument. I, a devout and long-confirmed atheist, don't think it will be necessarily best to elect an atheist.

I say this because, since atheism is not a system of believe, all atheists are different. Saying that a person is an atheist is to say nothing about that person. Being an atheist doesn't say anything about what you are, it just says what you are not. It is like the stupid self-identification of being a "non-smoker". It assumes smoking is the default behavior, but beyond that says nothing about what you actually do. You can not say that a "non-smoker" is more healthy, eats a balanced diet, goes to the gym regularly and plays lawn-darts on the weekend. Neither can you say an atheist is A, B and C.

The qualities you list for a president are indeed fine qualities, but not all atheists adhere to those ideas. Would that they did. I've known a lot of atheists. Most of them are good, solid people; some of them are complete shitheads.

I will say, however, that an atheist is more likely to accept your ideals and live by them, for no other reason than that atheists are not bound by a self-imposed dogma that is antithetical to those ideals, but it is my no means a certainty.

To many, particularly Tankard2 and Sara F:

The argument of whether atheism requires belief or not revolves around your definition of the word 'belief.'

Webster says that belief is "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence." From that definition atheism most certainly is a belief, far more than religion, which appears to be based on faith, a more constrained version of belief. (Webster: Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

From what has been said, some confusion of the ideas of faith and belief is present here, and declaring someone's comment wrongheaded based on a definition of belief that is likely different than the one that the comment's author was using do not serve you well.

Again, do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Almost certainly not. Is that lack of belief also a belief in and of itself? According to Webster it is; according to you it isn't. I'm not appealing to authority to make my argument, just demonstrating that without clearer statements of definition, the arguments that have been made here are fairly meaningless.

Attempting to legitimize atheism by removing belief from it is wrongheaded, in my opinion. Faith, most certainly... I have absolutely zero faith in the presence of the supernatural, as there is overwhelming negative evidence and no positive evidence (none that holds up to scrutiny anyway.) If atheism does require belief, using Webster's definition of the term, then that's just fine by me. What is wrong with belief as defined above? If atheism isn't a belief, then what the heck is it? It most certainly isn't a lack of belief ("conviction of the truth of an argument, etc.") It is a lack of faith, or perhaps to put it in a more positive light, an acceptance of reality, regarding the supernatural.

Now perhaps there is someone out there who has never considered the question at all, who legitimately has NO view on the supernatural, no belief, one way or the other, but you'd be hard pressed to find that person.

Actually, JasonP, take your Webster's definition of belief an apply it to the situation.

"Belief" = "conviction in the truth of an argument"

Theist: "I have a [belief] in god"
becomes
"I have a [conviction in the truth of the arguments] for god"

Atheist: "I lack a [belief] in god"
becomes
"I lack a [conviction in the truth of the arguments] for god"

You say atheism "most certainly isn't a lack of belief." But when you substitute the definition of belief for the word itself, you see it IS a lack of belief, because it is a lack of conviction etc, etc, etc.