The Likely Reason Why Zuckerberg Denounced His Atheism — HINT: It’s Not His Daughter

Unless you turned a blind eye to all social media and news outlets over the holidays, you might have noticed headlines about Mark Zuckerberg denying his atheism.  On Christmas Day, he posted the following on Facebook. Note the first comment and Zuck’s response:


Widespread speculation on the interwebs suggested that Zuck’s change of heart is likely due to his daughter’s arrival in late 2015 and the religious customs that coincide with childhood and early development.  But now there’s another theory floating around.

Yesterday, Zuckerberg posted that he plans to visit every state by the end of 2017, spending time speaking to people in each state.  Since political involvement is not new to Mark, some are speculating that this move is a first step in launching a political career that will culminate in a run for office.

I, for one, would be quite interested in what a politician-Zuckerberg would have to say about what he thinks he could accomplish.  He’s a pro-science, pro-technology, young, intelligent, in-touch American who values philanthropy.  Aside from being a billionaire political outsider (and quite possibly now a closeted atheist), Mark Zuckerberg could be the total polar opposite of Donald Trump, something America may be very ready for in a year or two.

So now that he’s shed his atheism skin, Zuckerberg will be that much more palatable to the broader segment of American voters who think that not believing in magic is some kind of a barrier to office.


Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis is the head writer and editor for SecularVoices, co-founder of Young Skeptics, and author of Understanding an Atheist. He is known for local and national secular activism and has spoken at conferences and events such as Reason Rally 2016 and the Ark Encounter Protest and Rally.

View all posts by Kevin Davis →

21 thoughts on “The Likely Reason Why Zuckerberg Denounced His Atheism — HINT: It’s Not His Daughter

    1. There is a difference between believing something, and pandering to those who believe it. Maybe not much of a difference in terms of actions and trustworthiness, but there it is…

  1. If he values philanthropy why did he flee the US when it came time to pay taxes? He gained immensely from our infrastructure but feels he doesn’t have to pay his fair share in supporting it.

    1. Why people revere this guy who got his billions by stealing from his friends, I don’t know. It’s our society’s adulation of wealth …

  2. Way to alienate at least a quarter of registered voters who are non-religious. A number that will likely grow a great deal in the next few years.

    1. Not to mention that he’s 2 faced, duplicitous, and he lies. Well, we already knew that. If you’re genuinely christian, fine. He’s lying.

  3. Why is he better than Trump? Why would we revere this guy, who got FB by thievery from friends? It wasn’t innovation and intelligence that created FB – it was a group of friends. He took it and ran. They were cheated. You’re ok with that kind of morality?

  4. Re: “who values philanthropy”

    I think you mean “philanthrocapitalism.” There is a big difference.

    Folks like Gates and Zuckerberg think they are ubermensches who can and should change the world with money, whether us little people like it or not, democracy be “damned.”

  5. From “Think Progress” 10 May 2013

    Two major tech leaders have resigned from Mark Zuckerberg’s new political group,, in protest of the organization’s controversial decision to bankroll ads supporting Keystone XL and drilling in the Arctic National Refuge.

    The Zuckerberg group publicly says its top priority is immigration reform. But through two subsidiary organizations it has quietly spent millions on ads advocating a host of anti-environmental causes. The ads were created in support of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mark Begich (D-AK), and although neither ad mentions the issue, both support immigration reform.

  6. I, for one, would be quite interested in what a politician-Zuckerberg would have to say about what he thinks he could accomplish.

    Given that he’s already pandering to the worst of America’s backward authoritarian interest-groups, and doesn’t seem to have the guts to say anything more specific about his beliefs, even as he tries to disown his previous atheism, I’d say, not bloody much. At best, maybe he’ll just end up being another wishy-washy centrist like Hillary Dukakis, trying to blaze some kind of new trail/Third Way fantasy without confronting either entrenched reactionary interest-groups or systemic injustices in our current political-economic system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *