this post was submitted on
1,189 points (73% like it)
1,868 up votes 679 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,253,064 readers

1,395 users here now


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
AtheistVids atheismbot secularstudents

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 189 comments

[–]Mcsofa101 44 points45 points ago

I find that that should be true of all people, like me personally, I don't like the idea of abortion, but who the hell am I to tell someone that they can't have one cause I disagree with it.

[–]Belifax 28 points29 points ago

To be fair, if you believe that it is actually murder then you should be compelled to try to get abortion banned. If murder was a matter of choice, it would not suffice to say, "I will not commit murder, but others are free to make their own decision about it." Personally, I am Pro-Choice, but I can see the validity in the Pro-Life argument.

[–]FuriousCpath 7 points8 points ago

Exactly. Its not a clear cut issue. I'm pro choice, but I can understand that to a lot of people its murder and they aren't just being religious nuts. Its just one of those things that's kind of lose lose either way, and we have to pick which is the least bad. I also think a lot of pro choice people understand that, I mean come on nobody WANTS to have an abortion, but they want the option if they ever need it.

[–]guard_press 3 points4 points ago

Valid except for the part where the conflation of abortion and murder is nearly always rooted in religious dogma.

[–]yeathl 5 points6 points ago

That's exactly the point... those who are anti-abortion, never seem to be able to make a medical, scientific, or even rational case as to why a human life starts at conception, rather than viability. At least I have never come across an argument from them that even approaches a medical or scientific rational or holds up to scrutiny.

[–]FuriousCpath 2 points3 points ago

Yup, alot of the time. I also know people who are atheist and pro life. Its all about what you consider to be life and what is worth more. I'm not really arguing one way or the other, I'm just saying I don't hate the other side like a lot of people do because they are trying to do what they think is right just like you.

[–]kklusmeier 1 point2 points ago

Unfortunately this is true. I think that policy should be established based upon reason.

If religion tells you something is wrong then protest it, but don't force your beliefs on me. (I say this as a religious person)

[–]A7X4REVer 0 points1 point ago

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that until a certain time is reached after conception, a fetus is not technically a living life form. I think it was something like 2nd trimester or something. So if a woman gets an abortion before then, she technically isn't killing anything. Just having an object removed from her. After that mark, it is considered killing a child.

[–]kklusmeier -2 points-1 points ago

I personally am pro-life. The fetus is a separate entity in my view(has it's own genetic code, also heartbeat and neural activity if late enough).

I won't ban abortions, but I will refuse to allow my tax money to pay for it. I think that you made the choice to have the kid when you had sex.

In rape cases, they didn't have a choice, and that's obviously bad, but we can give the mothers government compensation until the child is born and then put the kid up for foster care/adoption. Is there any reason to kill the kid because the father was an asshole?

[–]MacGreensomething 12 points13 points ago

I always thought of it like this: Until the fetus is at a point where it can survive outside the womb on its own (from around 23-26 weeks on, depending on which doctor you talk to) then it's a parasite.

As a hardcore pro-choicer, I am opposed to late-term abortions.

But as far as first-second trimester abortions: As a biologist, I think that it's ridiculous to say that something that's essentially a large blastocyst is considered a life form.

When my married friend got pregnant, her doctor even told her not to tell announce it before three months in case there was a problem.

[–]MisogynistLesbian 0 points1 point ago

It all comes down to when you consider a fetus to be a human being as a opposed to a cluster of cells. Everyone has their own personal opinion and there is no scientific consensus, as obviously we still don't know of all the workings of the brain. I don't think this issue will ever be settled until that happens.

[–]GoldenBough 2 points3 points ago

We do know neurology though. The scientific community is pretty well satisfied regarding the stages of fetus development and when certain mile-markers are reached.

[–]MisogynistLesbian 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, but I was talking about the fact that we don't know what exactly constitutes our consciousness/awareness. The hypothetical life-force, if you will.

[–]GoldenBough 1 point2 points ago

Which is a question for philosophy, not medicine.

[–]mombo 5 points6 points ago

I think the you accept having a baby a bit further in the pregnancy. But I see your point of view.

But when someone forced you to take a "deal" that you didn't wanted and couldn't resist. Then the deal is out of the window. And you should not have to risk your life. Then the unborn baby's right comes second to the mother. Because the mother is the one with all the risks. You can't infringe on other people rights. A persons right to life doesn't involve infringing basic rights of another persons body.

I think the choice is made a couple of months in the pregnancy. That's how I simplify it morally. But I agree taxpayers money shouldn't go to it, insurance or the rapist should of course pay for it.

[–]pole_dancer 3 points4 points ago

I don't know if you've ever been pregnant, but its not fun. No person should ever be forced to go through it by the government if she were raped. Poor girl has been through enough and if there is a god, he'll take care of the baby's soul.

[–]kklusmeier 0 points1 point ago

I'm taking an atheist view- that this is all we have.

Rape case abortions are a bit of a gray zone for me, but I decided that I needed to be constant- if abortion is wrong, then it is wrong all of the time when it is not for some other purpose (saving life of the mother). I really don't think my idea is the best, but again, I don't think that anyone has the right to cut off an innocent person's life.

Do you have the right to destroy what could be a productive and full life, just because 'its not fun'?

[–]megalurkeruygcxrtgbn 1 point2 points ago

I think the mother has a right to decided what will happen with her body. I also believe that she should make this choice within the first two months of pregnancy. After that, you should probably know whether or not you're pregnant (ideally), and made your choice.

[–]kklusmeier 0 points1 point ago

I agree with you, but I just place the line of choice at conception rather than at the 2 month mark.

[–]atRizon 5 points6 points ago

Abortion should be legal until the baby can survive outside the mother's body. I would say unaided, but I'd be okay with aided if the anti-abortion people footed the bill.

It's the only logical option. The insanity of holding a living, breathing person hostage to a clump of cells that can't survive without said person... it blows my mind that anyone is anything other than pro-choice for others.

Using contraceptives isn't 100% effective. So you want to punish people who accidentally get pregnant even though they were trying not to? Makes no sense.

As for your opinion on rape cases... /facepalm

[–]Athurio 1 point2 points ago

Well, there are people of faith who think I commit mass-murder every time I break out the Jergens, so I'm not surprised at some of the more insane ideas out there.

[–]ShrewyLouie -3 points-2 points ago

Whoa...do you have any idea how long it would take for a child to survive without its mother's care? Do you think that babies are self-sufficient once they leave the womb? What the fuck kind of logic is this? For the record, I'm undecided on the issue of abortion, but it just seems like those who are pro-choice care more about mother's rights than the life of a human...

[–]jeepnjinx 2 points3 points ago

Isn't a mother human?

And no, babies are not self sufficient when they are aborted from a woman at any time. The idea that an unwanted kid, once viable outside the womb, can be removed like a mole with no consequences to either party is retarded.

Every baby should be wanted and cherished; we have the technology. All of society is better served by acknowledging the reproductive rights of women.

[–]ShrewyLouie 0 points1 point ago

At some point you have to weigh the rights of a mother to end an unwanted child's life against the right of an unborn child to be born. Don't unborn babies deserve the chance to live regardless of...anything? (besides the birth itself risking the mother's life)

[–]jeepnjinx 1 point2 points ago

No, they don't... There's no logical reason why they should.

[–]ShrewyLouie 1 point2 points ago

The logic can be seen in that humans generally believe it to be "wrong" to end the life of another human, unless their own life is threatened.

[–]jeepnjinx 1 point2 points ago

That's definitely not generally agreed upon by all humans. Tons of examples from capital punishment to euthanasia to defense of another...

Why does it make sense to you that a woman has a full compliment of rights to her own body until she conceives, and then those rights are trumped by a "possible" human?

[–]atRizon -1 points0 points ago

No. Unborn clumps of cells that might eventually become children have no rights.

To suggest otherwise is absurd.

[–]atRizon 0 points1 point ago

Logic I didn't use, obviously. Except for your last statement about mother's rights...

Of course I care more about the mother's rights than a clump of cells. It's insane to do otherwise, and using false equivalency to pretend that the clump of cells is actually a person is just an attempt to push a moral judgement.

Secondly, I didn't say without its mother's care. This seems to be another attempt to sidestep what I said, which was that the baby could survive outside the mother's body unaided. This, in context, means things like incubators, etc. Of course, after the baby is born it doesn't have to be the mother's care like in your argument... just someone.

[–]themasterbaits 2 points3 points ago

Abortion is just selective miscarriage...God gaves us Free Will and God gave us miscarriages...therefore God has given us the right to abortion.

Unless you protesting nuclear weapons you are not prolife.

[–]Dday82 0 points1 point ago

Selective miscarriage? That's like saying you can commit selective manslaughter.

[–]themasterbaits 0 points1 point ago

Sort of....but my reasoning is sound Biblically.

[–]Belifax 2 points3 points ago

I think if what you suggest was implemented there would be many people who claim their child was the result of rape when it wasn't in order to get money from the government.

[–]kklusmeier 1 point2 points ago

This is true. Our society has become a welfare society- A society of "What can I get from the government?"

I wish more people would use/believe that JFK quote literally: "(M)y fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

But that isn't ever going to happen.

Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

I believe that if we don't get the debt and welfare state mentality under control, we have begun the decline into the end of the US.

[–]philldwill 2 points3 points ago

How do you feel about cows, fish and birds? I mean, we eat them all the time and have no remorse for their deaths. I've worked with Cows and they are full of personality, and they also have heartbeats and are unique genetically. To me, killing a cow is less justifiable than ending a pregnancy, especially in the early stages.

[–]guard_press 2 points3 points ago

Pigs and crickets and ants are also separate entities. Is a fetus special because it is human tissue? Gestating said fetus is also pretty rough on the woman that's carrying it, why is her physical/mental distress less important than the sustaining of a lump of unique tissue (that is by all metrics somewhat significantly less aware of its circumstance than your garden variety rat or squirrel?)

[–]amoludare 5 points6 points ago

At what point did you become aware of your own existence? 2? 3? 4? Awareness is an terrible argument. Or perhaps we should kill coma patients.

[–]guard_press 1 point2 points ago

Are we talking about a person in a coma who is threatening decades of financial and emotional distress on their sole surviving family member? Let's go ahead and make that family member a sixteen year old girl that wasn't even aware they had a great aunt two weeks ago. Aside from the lack of higher brain function and regular infections that require expensive medications and surgeries to treat, this surprise relative in in amazingly good health. Let's make it easier and assume that maybe this sixteen year old girl only has to foot the unexpected medical bills and change bedpans for the next nine months (while her health and body deteriorates from the stress) and then the state can step in to provide vastly inferior care for the next several years. That's fair, right? Never mind that she's just been raped by someone that looks kind of like her new great aunt. Her mental distress at the thought and sight of her unwanted responsibility is ultimately less important than the responsibility itself. I could go on.

In the real world, coma patients get taken off life support by their grieving families all the time. It's a tough decision to make, but it gets made. The well-being and sanity of living, breathing people trumps the interest of our former (or future, if you want to stick with this broken metaphor) loved ones that may or may not wake up some day.

Awareness is a valid criteria. It informs difficult decisions in hospices and hospitals across the world every day.

[–]amoludare 0 points1 point ago

I said kill, not "let die". Try again. Without your emotional appeal.

[–]guard_press 1 point2 points ago

Removing from life support seems to cover it in both cases. Would extracting the fetus in one piece and leaving it out on the counter for a couple of moments make you feel better?

[–]amoludare 0 points1 point ago

No. If you can't see the difference you aren't worth talking to. And unlike you, I am not bringing feelings into this discussion.

[–]guard_press 0 points1 point ago

I'd appreciate being told the difference.

[–]atRizon 0 points1 point ago

You can't kill what isn't living.

guard_press is right about what he(?) said, he just fell for your trap and allowed you to define that abortion is killing... when its not.

In order for it to be killing, it would have to be a self sufficient organism that you caused to die.

In this case, its a parasite like a ton of other organisms, and is not being killed.... you could say that the mother is being cured, however.

Furthermore, taking someone off life support is just as much killing them as shooting them in the head... just a different method.

[–]amoludare 0 points1 point ago

It's obviously living. There is debate over whether it's a life. I'm not sure where you think I defined abortion as killing either. If they want to address my statement, then they should do so as it was written. I write my sentences deliberately. I wasn't even discussing whether it's right or wrong to kill or let someone die. I was questioning whether or not awareness is valid criterion for doing so.

If you can't see the difference between shooting Terri Schiavo in the head and removing her feeding tube then I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion.

[–]kklusmeier 2 points3 points ago

I think that what an atheist would say is important is that the fetus has the potential for higher reasoning, while crickets and ants and pigs do not. I agree with this somewhat.

I am not an atheist myself, so I cannot say how close my statement is to an average atheists' belief, but that is what I think a pro-life atheist would argue.

I myself believe that the fetus is a person, and thus, that abortion is murder. Part of the reason I believe that the fetus is a person is the above argument of potential reasoning, and part of it is my respect for the sanctity of life (which probably comes from my religious sentiments, but again, as I am not an atheist, I can't confirm that).

[–]guard_press 1 point2 points ago

The real wrinkle here is that if you've completely freed yourself from magical thinking the assertion that humans are fundamentally different from other animals doesn't hold much water. There's no evidence for the existence of a soul, so you're really just looking at how similar things are to yourself as the observer, and how uncomfortable the idea of killing them makes you. Weigh that against your respect for the autonomy and self-rule of others (because prior to the second half of the last trimester you can't really consider a fetus to be an independent organism - it's still using the mother's body as a developmental template and relying on it for oxygen and nourishment) and decide if your discomfort over the removal and disposal of a human fetus is more important than respecting the ability of the person who is willingly or unwillingly keeping it alive to make decisions for and about themselves. Remember that for many atheists that self-determination is kind of a big deal. In a way, it's all we've got.

I understand that there's a wide divide here, ideologically. I'm always glad for respectful communication on this most sensitive topic.

[–]ShrewyLouie 0 points1 point ago

Yes, a fetus is special because it is human tissue. A lump of unique tissue is what I throw in the garbage after masturbating...

[–]scrash 1 point2 points ago

what about cases where the fetus is found to have a horrible genetic disorder through genetic testing where it is has a 99% chance to die in the first year of life? This is not as uncommon as you may think. It is a pretty huge reason why women should be allowed to have a choice if they want to go through all that pain of giving birth to a child who will probably be in immense pain for his only year of life.

[–]FTomato 0 points1 point ago

The same argument could be said for euthanasia in terminal patients.

[–]scrash 0 points1 point ago

Ok. But they're really not the same and shouldn't be compared. That's a separate issue.

[–]tehgama95 0 points1 point ago

I don't really see people who are anti-abortion go out and adopt a kid too often.

[–]Bradyhaha 2 points3 points ago

Seconded... upvote!

[–]paranode 0 points1 point ago

Unlike most issues though the contention here is the rights of a third party (the fetus/child). Whether they have rights and when their rights begin. If we say they have a right to life then it is the government's prerogative to protect it.

[–]runtotheabyss 36 points37 points ago

One of the best explanations on why the First Amendment exists I know of... Oh that's right he's a Constitutional Lawyer and not an uneducated buffoon. Who'd vote a guy like that into office?

[–]devinbraeger 16 points17 points ago

Say what you want about Obama's economic plan for this country, but this is the exact reason why he is a better candidate than Romney

[–]runtotheabyss 1 point2 points ago

Ok, let's brush up on our satire here, that last sentence is obviously sarcasm based of our context clues from after the ellipsis. Sorry to be a jerk man, but really? I'm obviously complementing Obama by saying he would have something so eloquently stated, and then stating the reasons why. Romney and Bush are both idiots who are/were puppets for their party. Meanwhile Obama was a professor on the subject of the Constitution, kinda makes the tea partiers who cry about the Constitution and adhering to it seem like total idiots.

[–]JEveryman 3 points4 points ago

I think you may have responded to the wrong person. It sounded like devinbraeger was in agreement with you and got the point.

[–]runtotheabyss 1 point2 points ago

Dammit, yea. Shit

[–]bracomadar 2 points3 points ago

He's a Constitutional lawyer and still signs NDAA.

[–]paranode -5 points-4 points ago

The United States. He's the President, guy.

[–]fg2intw 10 points11 points ago

Good Guy Obama has a good point.

[–]bejayel 10 points11 points ago

I am fully against abortion, too. I think that everyone should exhaust all possabilities before it. However, it should be an accessible option if it is needed.

People who run around without birth control and just abort upon pregnancy is something I am completely against.

[–]coyote1284 7 points8 points ago

I am inclined to agree with that sentiment. We need to make contraceptives more accessible and abortion a last resort, instead of trying to block both.

[–]GoldenBough 3 points4 points ago

Denmark has some of the lowest rates of abortion in the first world, through a combination of birth control and education. It works, and if you really want to reduce abortions, fix the problems not the symptoms.

[–]jeepnjinx 6 points7 points ago

So, like the vast majority of women, don't do that.

You think the pool of women that would rather pay to have an invasive surgery instead of popping a pill is large enough to dictate policy for the rest of us that simply want to only have the kids we can take care of?

[–]pidgezero_one 1 point2 points ago

This cannot possibly be upvoted enough. Women are not as stupid as pro-lifers make them out to be.

[–]gunslinger_006 6 points7 points ago

This quote cannot possibly be upvoted enough.

[–]Groty 6 points7 points ago

He used some big words in there. Many won't understand it and hate him more for being an "intellectual elitist".

[–]favoriddycent 0 points1 point ago

Is it really that sad? (I'm not American) How does that quote make you an "intellectual elitist".

[–]NGeX 5 points6 points ago

It does not matter what faith that the President subscribes to or not. He is a greater man because he knows that he is NOT a supreme overlord (even though he possesses the power to make things go his way) and he can't force people to do things against their beliefs. Barrack comes across as one of the people whom would say; "Against abortion? Don't get one. Against gay marriage? Don't marry the same gender? Against any faith but your own? Wake up and smell the daisies. This is not Kansas anymore. We are a country of Muslims, Christians, Hindus and more."

[–]wynnfidel 4 points5 points ago

Fucking A.

[–]remote_production 4 points5 points ago

Secularism!

[–]miss_opiumsmoker 0 points1 point ago

Shades of Justice as Fairness and Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical, to be exact

[–]coyote1284 1 point2 points ago

And this, folks, is exactly what 'this has to do with /r/atheism'.

[–]skabears 9 points10 points ago

This is the greater man, I can't believe mitt Romney might win because of the gullible people who fell for his bull shit during the debate

[–]CmrnDrgn 6 points7 points ago

That is the MO Fuckin' Troof!!!

[–]Hackobster 3 points4 points ago

If everyone understood this simple concept, our American democracy would be so much better

[–]JimmyNelson 5 points6 points ago

Its so nice to have a well educated man as our President. After the last disaster of a President we had, Obama is such a breath of fresh air. Respected internationally, Educated, and just an all around nice guy.

[–]relativex 2 points3 points ago

I feel embarrassed as an American when I think of how many votes Mitt Romney is going to get. I don't think he'll win, but just the fact people are going to vote for him is bad enough. It's beyond reason to me. I can't understand someone looking at the two candidates side by side and saying, "Yeah, Romney's my guy." Embarrassing.

[–]colette22 2 points3 points ago

This is a forward thinking and tolerant man. I cannot applaud him enough for not pushing his personal religious beliefs on all Americans. Christian's may argue that this country was founded on Christianity, whether that is true or not, we are not solely a Christian Nation now, whether we like it or not. This is a country that prides itself on freedom...it seems so damn hypocritical to want to force our religion into law...upon people who may believe otherwise, no matter what religion it is. How would you feel having to move to a country who law is build upon an opposing religion of your own?

I for one love having a president with such strong beliefs towards tolerance and equality.

[–]BlueTequila 1 point2 points ago

"I want to ban abortion because of my religion but, I dont know of any reason beyond that so until I can think of a real reason I wont propose laws to ban it"

This is the message I got from that snipet. Is this the general idea?

[–]coyote1284 3 points4 points ago

No, presenting a hypothetical situation does not imply intent to do so.

[–]WeaponsGradeHumanity 1 point2 points ago

There's a lot of subtlety in this quote that can't be understood without context.
For a start, there's controversy about whether Obama is a christian or not. He attends a church and so on but some people hold that it's a necessary cover due to the way americans and american politics favour christians. With this in mind, the statement "I may be opposed to abortion for religious meanings" is suddenly ambiguous.
I think the real message of the quote is that Obama fully supports the separation of church and state intended by the founding fathers of the country.

[–]evilCEO 0 points1 point ago

Yup, a lot of complexity surrounds it but ultimately it's utterly simple, completely consistent and terribly patriotic. What a shame he continues the torture and bombing.

[–]LIGHT_OF_REASON 5 points6 points ago

I'm certain the POTUS is an atheist. He's to smart to be a christian. Half his family are atheist and he only found god late in his life as his political career was developing. WE OWN THE WHITE HOUSE BOYS, YEEHAW!!

[–]Bradyhaha 7 points8 points ago

I'd imagine he would announce in his farewell address. Oh the lols that will be had.

[–]willer2122 6 points7 points ago

Four years from now

[–]Bradyhaha 1 point2 points ago

Naturally. Although as long as these wackjobs are running I would be OK voting Obama for supreme overlord, that is if Clinton turns down the job.

[–]willer2122 0 points1 point ago

Why clinton? I cant tell whether you are being sarcastic

[–]Bradyhaha 0 points1 point ago

Do you have a better alternative? And only slightly sarcastic.

[–]Negro_Napoleon 10 points11 points ago

Something I wrote a while back when someone said I couldn't "prove" barack is an atheist, or at least really someone who is privately very liberally religious.

About his mother "This isn't to say that she provided me with no religious instruction. In her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites. But I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained commitment on my part. Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways —and not necessarily the best way — that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives."

His biological father? Atheist.

His mother? Atheist AND anthropologist (understanding human society and behavior)

His grandfather and grandmother that raised him? Both vocal atheists (talks about this a lot in his books)

Simply put: Black people aren't getting elected if they're not religious.

Visit /r/BlackAtheism more and we discuss this in detail.

Quotes like this and that speech from 2006 he did where he espouses his problems with referring to the bible show me that hes a closet atheist/very agnostic person that is playing the game of political musical chairs.

Don't forget this: http://i.imgur.com/BVt0i.jpg

He "found" god @ 26 as a community organizer in Chicago and if you know chicago, theres a lot of black people there and you're not going to get famous there, as black man, without the black vote which comes from black churches. He had to play the game.

Grew up in extremely diverse settings, i'm sure having memories of madrasas allowed him to contrast that with the radical christianity in america....

Hes one of the smartest presidents, on paper, that we've ever had. Remember, they tried to make fun of him because he went to the best schools in the country? I mean come on as if being a biracial kid raised by a single mother (even though she used to work for the Ford Foundation...LOL) isn't a massive hurdle in life.

Every chance he gets hes always promoting STEM fields and human achievement. Not willy nilly passive goals.

He rarely says that prayer influences his decisions a-la Bush 1 or 2, or even the possibly closet atheist that clinton was said to be. Faith is never a member of his team of decision makers.

When he forgets to pray people blow their lids off and call him unamerican. He left god out of the verbatim recitation of various historical documents and speeches and 9/11

Hes not religious At all.

Every time he opens his mouth about christianity it sounds forced as hell. I'm not going to go into his politics or anything...but I think to call him a closet atheist, is not a far stretch at all. I know /r/atheism loves the "wheres the evidence" claim, but to be honest here. Obama has had more secular groups at the white house than any other president , a point verified by many fundie-right wingers; so i'm sure they'd be honest about feeling threatened. He only refers to religion during times of tragedy, mandatory events like prayer breakfasts...or when hes trolling the GOP like he recently basically said "this is what jesus would do," to try and convince them to adopt his politics.

He trolls religion regularly. Its obvious. Why else do you think all the fundies are scared they would lose their privileges under him? He even campaigned on eliminating faith-based initiatives but after the backlash following his election he was forced to backtrack and reinforce the initiative with a "faith office". On top of that, don't forget him trying to get catholics to pay for birth control... hes trolling catholic church hospitals these days. I'm certain that even slightly religious people would have more "respect" for people of faith and their autonomy.

Obama has supported gay-rights WHOLEHEARTEDLY since 1996 AT LEAST

No one in politics or academia believes him; Even people with different views don't believe him:

Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Ann Coulter, Lawrence Krauss, Pat Buchanan, Franklin Graham, Pat Roberson, Bill Maher, Penn Jillette etc. All of them think hes faking it. Hardcore christians and hardcore atheists.

He also campaigned on getting religion out of hiring practices: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082217-503544.html

He's the first president to acknowledge non-believers: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-20-obama-non-believers_N.htm

Now you want info on Jeremiah Wright? Obama probably only distantly knew the guy. He had to more than likely only show up for appearances to make him seem like he was in touch with the community.

Here is a point we need to talk about... Jeremiah Wright was caught saying "god damn america"...but you really don't understand what he was getting at. He was saying how utterly fucked up this country has been to minorities. Its true. You can deny it all you want, but he was highlighting a truth, albeit emotionally. He just wanted to say that America should really recognize their ways if they want to embrace Obama. Its kinda that "hey, they don't like me? well damn them!" Jeremiah Wright is not racist. Not at all. But you have to remember the bias white/right-wing america feels to anyone who talks about white priviledge or exposes their messed up of institutionalized racism, so of course the clip was crazy. Obama had to throw him under the bus to move on.

Black churches are the greatest source of networking in most urban communities, especially if black leaders are known to attend. Its all a game. I know in Atlanta every major city with a sizable minority population that many times, elected black officials only show up to church in times of election or when they need community support. They adopt a church home only to show their relation to the community. Its all for show. They have to connect with the people some how. Thats what a "representative" (in his case Senator) does.

Name a president who says this in his inaugural speech:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."

He's already the negro, kenyan, socialist, communist, anti christ, who hates America.

Why throw people another bone to hate him for?

Few links outlining many inconsistencies in his "faith":

  1. http://thekingsmanpaper.com/2012/03/the-atheist-in-chief/

  2. http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2007/10/obama-and-religion.html

  3. http://johntreed.com/Obamaatheist.html

Here he is making fun clinging to guns and religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA

There is even a new biography that tackles his introduction to christianity and it sounds...forced at best:

And to cap it off, here is a section from "The Audacity of Hope". Start in the middle of p.198—p.206 http://lnk.co/KPZUD . If that doesn't scream "faking it" to you, I don't know what will.

[–]coyote1284 2 points3 points ago

Silly, he's a Muslim, because his father was (at some time in his life) a Muslim and Obama went to Muslim schools, none of you facts matter. (sarcasm)

[–]WeaponsGradeHumanity 1 point2 points ago

^ too

[–]FiatJustitia 0 points1 point ago

It sure would be great if he applied that to some other things...

[–]skabears 0 points1 point ago

We're no talking about the kid after the birth, we're talking about abortion

[–]wnighttrain 0 points1 point ago

Wasn't this posted before and it was found that this, in fact, not a quote from Obama?

[–]hollingsworthless 3 points4 points ago

It is. I posted a link to the text of the entire speech.

[–]calger14 0 points1 point ago

A politician being completely fair :O

[–]Puninteresting 1 point2 points ago

I like the "pro life" and "pro choice" bullshit. EVERYONE is pro both of those things. We can't just say "pro abortion" and "anti abortion". Both sides have to have their own positive spin sounding phrases. So stupid.

[–]caffeinatedhacker 2 points3 points ago

I was going to make a comment about this as well, but opposite you. Really the term should not be "pro-life." Apparently I'm anti-life if i'm not pro-life. As in: I am against life. Meanwhile, I'm not pro or anti-abortion either. People don't like abortions. No one goes around spouting how much they like abortions. What I am is pro-choice, as in: for the right to choose. If we're going to use pro-choice we may as well use that term's actual negation, which is anti-choice.

[–]Puninteresting 0 points1 point ago

Maybe not pro-abortion inasmuch as we just love to go around having lots of abortions, but pro-abortion in the sense that people should be allowed to have them. That's it.

[–]pidgezero_one 1 point2 points ago

For people who support abortion as an option, I use the term "pro-choice"

For people who do not support abortion, I use the term "anti-abortion"

For people who support abortion only in the case of rape/incest, I use the term "pro-bullshit"

[–]voodoopork 1 point2 points ago

Now THAT is classy.

[–]mugwump10 0 points1 point ago

Notice he doesn't mention the word "rights" once.

[–]bambam182 1 point2 points ago

as a canadian, viewing this election from the outside, i couldn't possibly understand why anyone would vote romney over obama...of course, i'd probably vote for that crowd surfing guy before either of them...haha :)

[–]MarinePrincePrime 0 points1 point ago

So is he still pretending to be a Christian?

[–]bringer_of_words 0 points1 point ago

Source?

[–]FourteenHatch 1 point2 points ago

white text on white background.

/r/atheism: If we wanted it easy to read, we would have stuck with the Bible.

[–]chunes 0 points1 point ago

I like how he said "to take one example." That's exactly what I'd say if I was a closet atheist president.

[–]BiigWiggly 0 points1 point ago

Finally, someone fucking understands.

[–]chiablo 1 point2 points ago

[–]captnzoid 1 point2 points ago

I personally dislike the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" it instead should be "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Just because you support a woman's right to choose does not necessarily mean you are pro-abortion or anti-life.

[–]BarelyIntelligible 0 points1 point ago

I love this guy. He takes such complex issues and lays them out in such incredibly simple ways that even complete idiots can understand. I also think he may be secretly atheist, because when he refers to his religious ideologies, he does so very briefly, vaguely, and only when it cannot be avoided.

[–]Bikenutt 0 points1 point ago

Could you imagine Romney saying something this insightful?....me either.

[–]Free_Man_Libertarian 0 points1 point ago

Maybe while he's explaining that, he can explain his assassinations of U.S. citizens, why he supports the indefinite detention of people, his unwillingness to stop the NSA from spying on us, and why the government has the right to put a gun to our heads and lock us in cages if we don't want to be shaken down for immoral taxes. Yeah, why doesn't he explain that? Romney isn't any better, but at least he hasn't assassinated any U.S. citizens...yet.

A person who doesn't give two shits about our rights or freedoms deserves no respect or praise. A tyrant is a tyrant and I wish more people would accept the truth of the matter. It seems like a lot of you want freedom from the tyranny of religion, but you are more than happy to accept the tyranny of a violent government. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

[–]TrippedOutCat 0 points1 point ago

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/obama-assassinates-us-citizen

Bush assassinated someone from Buffalo in 2002...he just covered it up better...

[–]Detsuahxe 0 points1 point ago

Wow that image sure is fucking legible as shit.

[–]yeathl 1 point2 points ago

This is why... this is why we need four more years... a measured, reasonable man in the executive office, not a lackey for the ultra-conservative and radicalized right.

[–]Carbuncle117 0 points1 point ago

I feel that abortion should be left to the mother. Abortion because of genetic defects, or an unplanned pregnancy.
It's not entirely their fault she got pregnant a condom still has a chance of not working. That .01% is a slim chance but it's not 100% full proof. For genetic defects... I know it's a touchy subject and people feel that they shouldn't abort their child because he is a minority, but your putting that child and yourself into a position in which the child will be ridiculed and feel out of place in society. There is also the fact of who is going to be taking care of said child when you're gone? Putting the weight of your choice to not abort onto your children doesn't seem fair, they could be aspiring people who have a dream but are being held back to take care of their sibling that needs 24/7 attention. And if a health care aide or a home is a last resort I hope there is enough known about employees before you leave your child in the care of a complete stranger.

[–]pidgezero_one 1 point2 points ago

Unpopular opinion time: Women's bodies don't stop belonging to themselves after an arbitrary cutoff period, therefore pregnancy should be able to be ended at any stage for any reason.

My feelings about the pro-life movement can be summed up as "give them an inch and they'll take a mile".

[–]millercl32 0 points1 point ago

Wouldn't that principle be the value of life?

Seriously, I don't think this quote is so great. Good pic though.

[–]callseveryonefaggot 0 points1 point ago

hey could you get the text a little smaller for us faggot? I can actually still see that they are letters

[–]oristhisjustfantasea 0 points1 point ago

You know, if you think about it I think abortion would have been a-ok in the bible. It says to stone disobedient children to death, what is different if the husban/father (because it's the Bible, so men get the power) doesn't want the child, or finds out it isn't his? Plus God killed thousands of the unborn in the bible too.

[–]rareas 0 points1 point ago

This is why when we have republicans, we don't have nice things.

[–]squiddybiscuit 1 point2 points ago

Oh, come on. Obama is totally not against abortions, intelligent people very rarely are :p

[–]savorysaviour 0 points1 point ago

I'm so fucking envious of Americans having such President =/

[–]mitsudia 0 points1 point ago

Exactly why vote is going to him.

[–]I_ROPE_HORSES -1 points0 points ago

That quote can be applied to the war on drugs too. He is viciously attacking marijuana dispensaries and sits idly by as our prisons fill up with non violent pot smokers.

Obama is a tactician, every move he makes is a strategic one. He has no principles. He gives no fucks about you. He's in it for himself and that's it.

Edit: go on and downvote me you fucking cognitive dissonant Obama apologetic bottom dwelling scum.

[–]SpongeBobMadeMeGay 2 points3 points ago

Vote for NDAA, vote for domestic spying, vote for the federal reserve, vote for stimulus for well connected companies, vote for Jeff Immelt, vote for Eric holder, vote to crush Wikileaks, vote for America's biggest insurance salesman, vote for trillion $ defense, vote for trillion $ deficits, vote for more dead troops in Afghanistan, vote for marijuana raids, vote for the war on drugs, vote for the war on terror, vote for shitty public schools with a 30% drop out rate, vote for corporate welfare, vote for taxes, vote for your grandma to take all the social security money and leave you with nothing, vote for fast and furious, vote for drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Iraq.

VOTE FOR OBAMA, HE GAVE US A PHONE, HE'S GONNA DO MORE!

edit: Obama phone video & an article from HuffPo proving that there ACTUALLY IS an Obama phone

[–]UnknownArchive 0 points1 point ago

Anyone seeking more info might also check here:

title comnts points age /r/
It's not what they're arguing for. It's how they're arguing for it. 4coms 10pts 7mos politics
Obama on the separation of church and state 5coms 20pts 7mos atheism
Obama says any law passed must have universal principles and not be based in religion 1190coms 1667pts 8mos atheism
Barack Obama on the importance of separation of church and state 899coms 1453pts 11mos atheism
Obama's logic can also apply to gay marriage... 3coms 27pts 5mos atheism
Barack Obama's insightful words on abortion 2068coms 1952pts 7mos atheism

source: karmadecay

[–]SpongeBobMadeMeGay -1 points0 points ago

"But when I drone strike Pakistan and spy on America citizens, I don't gotta explain shit!"