Topic: Study: "Religious people mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists"

[ballz]

Sorry, I had to cut the title to get it all to fit.

"Religious people harbour deep mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists, says study"
By Steve Mertl | Daily Brew – Sat, 3 Dec, 2011

Would you trust an atheist to date your sister? If you're a religious person, there's a good chance you wouldn't.
A study by researchers at the University of British Columbia found believers distrusted atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists.
The only group study participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists, lead author Will Gervais told the Vancouver Sun.
"People are willing to hire an atheist for a job that is perceived as low-trust, for instance as a waitress," said Gervais, a doctoral student. "But when hiring for a high-trust job like daycare worker, they were like, nope, not going to hire an atheist for that job."
The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
By contrast, Gervais said atheists did not seem to have the same level of mistrust. They were indifferent to religious belief in assessing someone's trustworthiness.
"Atheists don't necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else," he said. "They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust."

More at the link http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/religious-people-harbour-deep-mistrust-of-atheists--about-equal-to-rapists--says-study.html


I'm not going to paint all religious people with the same brush, but this is a bit disappointing. While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...

So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.


For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.

[Journeyman]

Sorry, but this tread went actively RTFO, so I'd best bail -- mythology (or whatever you'll call it) is WAY outside my lane.

[Jim Seggie]

Sorry, I had to cut the title to get it all to fit.

"Religious people harbour deep mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists, says study"
By Steve Mertl | Daily Brew – Sat, 3 Dec, 2011

More at the link http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/religious-people-harbour-deep-mistrust-of-atheists--about-equal-to-rapists--says-study.html


I'm not going to paint all religious people with the same brush, but this is a bit disappointing. While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...

So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.


For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.

I don't really care about  who or what my fire team partner worships , if anything at all.


Besides - is it not illegal to ask a person's religious beliefs on a job application?

[ivan the tolerable]

While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...

So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.

Well, for what it's worth, some rather vocal atheists have been having a field day setting themselves up as opponents to all religion, rather than just non-practioners who ignore the theists, a la Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.  It really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they aren't trusted by religious folks when they're pretty vocal about wanting to abolish all religion.  A parallel example would be asking you to trust someone to date your daughter when they've got a track record of being vocal about wanting to abolish Canada and democracy, and they think that all serving military members are mindless, unthinking, baby-killing fascist automatons.  That is, presuming that Canada and democracy and the like, are something dear to your heart, and something you believe in.

And I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any.  The track record of Soviet Communists being nice guys (not!  Having murdered clergy and monastics by the hundreds of thousands, so the assertions that they've never engaged in religiously motivated violence is BS!), and the in-fighting and bickering of Madeline Murray O'Hair and her "American Atheists" organization don't help.  Oh, I know, they talk a lot about altruism and stuff...  Actual history just doesn't support the thesis.

By the way, why are you assuming religious folks are required by their morality to "trust" athiests in the first place?  I don't recall "trust" being mentioned in the 10 Commandments, or the Beatitudes.  Any ideas?

[milnews.ca]

For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.

Any religion that worships food vacuum sealed into foil pouches and housed in boxes with condiments and other goodies is certainly one I can get behind.

I don't really care about  who or what my fire team partner worships , if anything at all.

What comedian said something to the effect of, "why hate people based on race or religion when there's SOOOOOOOOOO many other better reasons to hate them?"

[ballz]

And I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any.  The track record of Soviet Communists being nice guys (not!  Having murdered clergy and monastics by the hundreds of thousands, so the assertions that they've never engaged in religiously motivated violence is BS!), and the in-fighting and bickering of Madeline Murray O'Hair and her "American Atheists" organization don't help.  Oh, I know, they talk a lot about altruism and stuff...  Actual history just doesn't support the thesis.

And Christianity gave us Hitler, the crusades, and burning "witches" (aka educated women), and the Muslims gave us 9/11 and jihads. No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.

By the way, why are you assuming religious folks are required by their morality to "trust" athiests in the first place?  I don't recall "trust" being mentioned in the 10 Commandments, or the Beatitudes.  Any ideas?

Actually, what I am assuming (and the whole point for posting the study) is that tolerance is a better moral practice than intolerance, and since various religions argue that they offer "moral truth," they ought to back that claim up with things like tolerance...

But since you asked, something about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in there somewhere...

[ivan the tolerable]

By contrast, Gervais said atheists did not seem to have the same level of mistrust. They were indifferent to religious belief in assessing someone's trustworthiness.
"Atheists don't necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else," he said. "They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust."

By the way, I'd like to know exactly how he got his conclusions for this.  I'm wondering if there isn't some confirmation bias involved.

[ballz]

Any religion that worships food vacuum sealed into foil pouches and housed in boxes with condiments and other goodies is certainly one I can get behind.

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

But the comedian you're referring to (I believe George Carlin said something similar, although he wouldn't have been the only one) is damn right.

[ballz]

By the way, I'd like to know exactly how he got his conclusions for this.  I'm wondering if there isn't some confirmation bias involved.

There is a link to the study in the article if you are actually wondering, though I'm guessing you're just trying to deny that religions don't exactly practice tolerance.

This study was also sparked from another study in which Atheists were far and above the most stereotyped in the US when asked about presidency.

[CDN Aviator]

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in my imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in any imaginary friend"


...and i'm the one who is not trustworthy ?

 

[jollyjacktar]

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in my imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in any imaginary friend"


...and i'm the one who is not trustworthy ?

 

I cannot disagree with you on this point.   

[milnews.ca]

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

My poor attempt at humour - rationalist.

[TheHead]

Well, for what it's worth, some rather vocal atheists have been having a field day setting themselves up as opponents to all religion, rather than just non-practioners who ignore the theists, a la Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.  It really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they aren't trusted by religious folks when they're pretty vocal about wanting to abolish all religion.  A parallel example would be asking you to trust someone to date your daughter when they've got a track record of being vocal about wanting to abolish Canada and democracy, and they think that all serving military members are mindless, unthinking, baby-killing fascist automatons.  That is, presuming that Canada and democracy and the like, are something dear to your heart, and something you believe in.

  Atheists, Agnostics and Anti-theists have plenty of reasons to be good to their fellow human.  Morality is a result of evolutionary progression and religion doesn't have a monopoly on it and never has.  Even when religious organizations were in power and could claim they had "God on their side" they never held any moral highground.  Morality comes from our desire to help our fellow primates out in order to better eachothers lives.   I would hope Ivan that you would have morals and be able to treat other people the way you wanted to be treated for other reasons than reward and threats of eternal punishment.   

  Also you're making a huge generalization about all Atheists when you bring Hitchens or Dawkins into this.  Not all Atheists think as militantly as they do.  It's no better than comparing all theists to the Westbro Baptist Church.

*Edited for spelling*

[ivan the tolerable]

And Christianity gave us Hitler, the crusades, and burning "witches" (aka educated women), and the Muslims gave us 9/11 and jihads. No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.

I'm not sure about the Western heresies (RCs, Protestants and such), but I can assure you that Orthodox Christianity did not give anyone Hitler.  At worst, a terrifically distorted and twisted version of Christianity might have incubated his opinions.  See references to Hitler's ideas about an "Aryan Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_religion.  I'm pretty sure however, that most people, if they think He existed, was actually Jewish.  I'm pretty sure that's a little detail that any sort of Nazified Christianity would have to go to great lengths to dance around.

Again, the Orthodox Christians were generally victims of the Crusades, rather than perpetrators - see the sacking of Constantinople for that one.  Historically, the burning of witches was done by secular courts rather than ecclesiastical ones.  Heaven know's why I'm defending the Inquisition on this point, but, in the actual history of Rome's Inquisitions, as opposed to popular assumptions, they tended towards leniency with regards to witchcraft accusations, in stark contrast to the secular courts of the day.  IIRC, only four people were convicted of witchcraft by the Inquisition over the hundreds of years of it's existence (I could be wrong about the number, but I'm pretty sure it's under a half dozen).

If anything Orthodox Christianity can be accused of, it would be giving us Stalin.  Good old Joseph, in his youth was educated in an Orthodox seminary.  Legend has it, while in Seminary, ol' Joe was serving as an acolyte (grown up version of an altar boy) and did something wrong during the service.  According to the story, the Bishop who was officiating slapped him across the face for it.  He apparently then and there silently vowed his revenge on the Church.  History shows that he got that in spades.  Moral of the story:  don't smack altar boys.   

Actually, what I am assuming (and the whole point for posting the study) is that tolerance is a better moral practice than intolerance, and since various religions argue that they offer "moral truth," they ought to back that claim up with things like tolerance...

I'm not arguing with you, as I most certainly agree that tolerance is preferable to intolerance.  However, tolerance is not a Christian virtue.  Love is.  They're not quite the same thing.  You can tolerate someone all the while not loving, or even trusting, them.

But since you asked, something about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in there somewhere...

Love and trust are not synonyms.

Interestingly, I often find myself sympathetic towards atheists, even if I don't agree with them.  Quite often their reasons for rejecting Christianity are the exact same reasons I rejected Western Christianity.  Of course, some have a hard time understanding that not all Christians believe in a God that "so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten son so He could torture Him to death in a most horrific fashion, which was an activity that put Him in a mood to be a teensy bit more forgiving towards everyone else."   

[ivan the tolerable]

There is a link to the study in the article if you are actually wondering...

Ooo!  Missed that!  Thanks.

...though I'm guessing you're just trying to deny that religions don't exactly practice tolerance.

Which would mean you're guessing wrong.  Thanks for playing though!

[ivan the tolerable]

Atheists, Agnostics and Anti-theists have plenty of reasons to be good to their fellow human.

And history shows that they're as spectacularly bad at it as Theists.  They have exactly no advantage there.  It's not religion, or the lack thereof, that is the problem.  It's human nature to be cruel to each other for personal gain.  That's historically demonstrable.  Christianity not only acknowledges that, but it's part of our doctrine in the first place.

Also you're making a huge generalization about all Atheists when you bring Hitchens or Dawkins into this.  Not all Atheists think as militantly as they do.  It's no better than comparing all theists to the Westbro Baptist Church.

Bravo!  I was wondering if anyone was bright enough to catch that one.  I wholeheartedly agree with you.

It is, however, true that Hitchens, Dawkins, Mahr and such, are the ones that get the airtime, get their movies made and get their books published and promoted.  I'm well aware that their views are far from representative of all atheists.  Regardless of whether they represent the "loudmouth moron fringe" of atheism or not, they end up being the de facto face of atheism to non-atheists.  It's kind of like how the snake-oil salesmen charlatan televangelists and the "don't confuse me with facts" creation science types end up representing Christianity to everyone else.  It's the nature of media that the sane get drown out by the shouts of the not-so-much.

BTW:  "Westboro"

[TheHead]

Thanks for fixing that

[ballz]

My poor attempt at humour - rationalist.

Sorry hahaha I laughed when I saw the big yellow words ... there is no way I should have needed that explained to me

I'm not sure about the Western heresies (RCs, Protestants and such), but I can assure you that Orthodox Christianity did not give anyone Hitler.

And history shows that they're as spectacularly bad at it as Theists.  They have exactly no advantage there.  It's not religion, or the lack thereof, that is the problem.  It's human nature to be cruel to each other for personal gain.  That's historically demonstrable.  Christianity not only acknowledges that, but it's part of our doctrine in the first place.

Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism. Truth be told though, when it comes to these "bad" deeds, the point that any rationalist would make is that no atheist was motivated by atheism to do bad deeds, but various religions do motivate people to do bad things they would otherwise not do if they did not believe in that religion.

Interestingly, I often find myself sympathetic towards atheists, even if I don't agree with them.  Quite often their reasons for rejecting Christianity are the exact same reasons I rejected Western Christianity.

That's curious.

It is, however, true that Hitchens, Dawkins, Mahr and such, are the ones that get the airtime, get their movies made and get their books published and promoted.  I'm well aware that their views are far from representative of all atheists.  Regardless of whether they represent the "loudmouth moron fringe" of atheism or not, they end up being the de facto face of atheism to non-atheists.

Maher isn't even atheist, he's a rationalist.

Dawkins and Hitchens wanting to "abolish" religion is actually that they just want to abolish things like laws being tied to religion, and having religion taught to children in schools, etc. As far as they're concerned, they don't want anything to do with what you do inside your own home, they just don't want people's beliefs affecting what they do in their daily life. They want the separation of church and state, they don't want kids being taught in school at an early age to believe something that has no evidence to support it. They also believe that religion holds back humanity from finding answers, and they're right, the Catholic church only just recently admitted that it was wrong for putting Galileo in jail for discovering the world is round and that it orbits the sun.

George Strombolopolous asked Christopher Hitchens, "I guess if it gets you through the night, why not right?" and he said "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind if you believe in virgin births or resurrections or this kind of thing. But the implication always is that you've got to believe it to or you're going to hell."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrrk0CU4QlE&feature=relmfu @ 2:25 and he says something similar at 3:30 about "going and telling it on the mountain."

So here's the loud mouth moron himself saying that... doesn't sound very intolerant to me, sounds like he just wants to be left alone and not have religion imposed on him. Quite frankly it scares me when the candidate for VP of the US claims that "God has a plan."

As for Dawkins, I have never seen him be anything but patient and respectful, I'd be much less patient so I won't criticize him.

EDIT: To correct an error

[Michael O'Leary]

Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.

Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?

[daftandbarmy]

Which reminds me of a joke....

One bright, beautiful Sunday morning, everyone in the tiny village wakes up early and goes to their local church. Before the service starts, the townspeople sit in their pews and talk about their lives and their families.

Suddenly, at the altar, Satan appears!! Everyone starts screaming and running for the front entrance, trampling each other in their determined efforts to get away from Evil Incarnate. Soon, everyone is evacuated from the church except for one man, who sit calmly in his pew, seemingly oblivious to the fact that God's ultimate enemy is in his presence. This confuses Satan a bit. Satan walks up to the man and says, "Hey, don't you know who I am?" The man says, "Yep, sure do."

Satan says, "Well, aren't you afraid of me?" The man says, "Nope, sure ain't."

Satan, perturbed, says, "And why aren't you afraid of me?" The man says, "Well, I've been married to your sister for 25 years."

[TheHead]

Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?

The Bible and the Quran.......

[cupper]

Taoism = crap happens.
Buddhism = If crap happens, it's not really crap.
Islam = If crap happens, it's the will of Allah.
Protestantism = crap happens because you don't work hard enough.
Judaism = Why does this crap always happen to us?
Hinduism = This crap happened before.
Catholicism = crap happens because you're bad.
Hare Krishna = crap happens rama rama.
T.V. Evangelism = Send more crap.
Atheism = No crap.
Jehova's Witness = Knock knock, crap happens.
Hedonism = There's nothing like a good crap happening.
Christian Science = crap happens in your mind.
Agnosticism = Maybe crap happens, maybe it doesn't.
Rastafarianism = Let's smoke this crap.
Existentialism = What is crap anyway?
Stoicism = This crap doesn't bother me.

[Michael O'Leary]

The Bible and the Quran.......

Ah yes, the first and only argument of the internet atheist, taking the stance that every Christian must be a theological literalist. Sadly, if that is all you or others can offer, you have given up any credibility or integrity you might bring to the discussion.

[cupper]

The Bible and the Quran.......

Be more specific.

[TheHead]

Be more specific.

Psalms 14:1 off the top of my head.