Why are Atheists So Disliked

[JGG]

Holding atheists in lower or the same regard as rapists.

Like, where did they find these people?

America.

 

[Belk]

Well, that's not stereotyping an entire class of people like a bigot would at all....


southbound does have a point, i could add a few more myself but its pretty much covered

Only if the point is generalizing large groups of people based on dubious information happens more then it should.

 

[rcorlew]

Wow, how about Dr. Seuss? Does he also spell out why Christians hate atheists?

non sequitur

 

[JGG]

non sequitur

Totally. Right?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If this was so important, why leave it out of the law they wrote? Maybe they ran out of room after adding the bit outlawing religious tests for elected officials.

It's really a moot point as the law, just as in the OT, has bound our hands from doing what should be done regarding governance. We're on a runaway train with no way to stop it or get off of it.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Double post

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I realize that what I say here may not make a difference to anyone, to atheist or Christian alike, but I feel I need to repeat and re-emphasize what I have said in my previous posts in response to the very un-Christlike behavior demonstrated by other Christians in this thread toward atheists. First, Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:30-31), and guess what... even atheists are our neighbors. We cannot hate another person either (Matthew 5:22). The Bible says whoever hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15) and whoever says, "I love God," but hates his brother is a liar (1 John 4:20). In complete contrast, Jesus commands us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36). I don't believe any person is void of God's grace as long as they still have breath in their lungs. I believe our God is able to lead any person, no matter who they are or what they might profess, to salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ. So with that said, I'm not willing to throw any non-Christian to the lions, so to speak (my original post).

Secondly, I said, I can just feel the love of Christ emanating from those spoken words. I can see Christ being represented as He should be and lifted up so He can draw all men unto Himself too. I can also see that these words are all said in the name of the Lord Jesus and are giving thanks to God the Father through Him. When Jesus said that from out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, He wasn't kidding was He? Or when the Apostle Paul contrasted the works of the flesh to the Fruit of the Spirit, he wasn't kidding either, was he? And what was that Scripture about not having any unwholesome talk come out of our mouths? Well I guess loving our neighbors as ourselves is out the window too, huh? Not to mention, being the salt and light to the world, so that the world may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in Heaven must also out the window, I assume? (my original post). I ended the post with these Scriptural passages:

James 1:26
"Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless."

James 3:9-12
"9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."

And finally, to the atheist, please know that I don't hate you in anyway. As a devout follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, I care about you (and I don't have to know you to care about you) and I'm deeply concerned for your eternal fate. Yes, I know you don't believe what I believe concerning this issue, but that doesn't prevent me from caring and for being extremely concerned for you. As I have stated to some of you before, I'm appalled and distressed by the attitude some Christians have displayed toward atheists in this thread. I'm ashamed, because I feel such behavior toward atheists greatly damages the name of Christ.

 

[Gadarene]

non sequitur

As is most of what you've said, although "prejudice" also describes your opinions here nicely.

 

[Gadarene]

I realize that what I say here may not make a difference to anyone, to atheist or Christian alike, but I feel I need to repeat and re-emphasize what I have said in my previous posts in response to the very un-Christlike behavior demonstrated by other [professing] Christians in this thread toward atheists.

Nah, don't worry DSG - for the most part us atheists here seem pretty aware that many Christians don't fail on this topic the way some of the Christian posters here do

 

[andy b]

What will you be cooking?

atheist sweetbread on toast

 

[andy b]

So you will be eating him? That's an odd interpretation of heaven. A place where the self-righteous eat the non-believers.

it depends on how tasty they are

 

[abdAlSalam]

Holding atheists in lower or the same regard as rapists.

Like, where did they find these people?

I actually conducted a replication of this study in my undergrad. It's important to note that the study isn't saying that Atheists are held in the same regard as rapists, the study is saying that Americans are as likely to attribute immoral behavior to Atheists and rapists.

The study goes something like this:
The proctor (person conducting the study) would read two stories about a character who 1) backs their car into another vehicle and then pretends to leave a note before driving off (the piece of paper they leave is blank) and 2) find a wallet on the path in a park, take the money from the wallet, and then throw it into the trash. The participants are then asked one of the following (and only one):
1. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Christian?
2. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Muslim?
3. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and an Atheist?
4. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Rapist?

People were more likely to attribute the bad behaviors of the man to atheists and rapists (they were about equal) than they were Muslims, and far more than they were to Christians.

So again, this does not mean that people hold Atheists in the same regard as rapists.

 

[Belk]

I actually conducted a replication of this study in my undergrad. It's important to note that the study isn't saying that Atheists are held in the same regard as rapists, the study is saying that Americans are as likely to attribute immoral behavior to Atheists and rapists.

The study goes something like this:
The proctor (person conducting the study) would read two stories about a character who 1) backs their car into another vehicle and then pretends to leave a note before driving off (the piece of paper they leave is blank) and 2) find a wallet on the path in a park, take the money from the wallet, and then throw it into the trash. The participants are then asked one of the following (and only one):
1. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Christian?
2. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Muslim?
3. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and an Atheist?
4. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Rapist?

People were more likely to attribute the bad behaviors of the man to atheists and rapists (they were about equal) than they were Muslims, and far more than they were to Christians.

So again, this does not mean that people hold Atheists in the same regard as rapists.

Interesting. Can you explain the reason they use this methodology. I presume it is to limit the results to something specific that is being measured?

 

[abdAlSalam]

Interesting. Can you explain the reason they use this methodology. I presume it is to limit the results to something specific that is being measured?

I'm not sure of your question, so if you need me to clarify something let me know. This post is originally from the Formal Debate Peanut Gallery.

So the day got away from me a bit yesterday and I wasn't able to do my write-up about the study from the University of British Colombia. I've got some time to do it today, and here it is.

The study in question is looking at implicit prejudices Americans and Canadians have for various groups. The groups in question were Christians, Muslims, Atheists and Rapists. For anyone who ever watched Sesame Street, they might tell right away that one of these things is not like the others.

So how did the researchers discover these implicit attitudes?

A quick psychology lesson is in order. The two concepts we are looking at in this study are Heuristics (specifically the Representativeness Heuristic) and something known as the Conjunction Fallacy.

Heuristics (definition from Cognition by Margaret W. Matlin, 7th edition): A general strategy that usually produces a correct solution, for example, in language, problem solving, and decision making. The Representativeness Heuristic is the mental shortcut we take when we decide that, since a particular individual has certain characteristics that we associate with a group, we judge this individual to be part of said group. So for example we see a young woman who is a member of a Women's Advocacy group who works to raise funds for various legislative actions. Several of these traits are ones we associate with liberals. So we would guess that this young woman probably votes for the Democratic Party.

Now this is where we come upon the Conjunction Fallacy. The conjunction rule states that the probability of the conjunction of two events cannot be larger than the probability of either of its constituent events. So it is statistically impossible for it to be more likely that our young woman is a Women's Rights Advocate and a Democratic Party voter than it is for her to be just a Women's Rights Advocate.

However, because of the Representativeness Heuristic, we make an error in judgment. We judge the probability of the conjunction of two events to be greater than the probability of a single event.

So how do these concepts relate to the study?

In this particular study, the researchers told participants two stories involving a man who performs some pretty bad behaviors. In the first story the man backs into a car, pretends to leave his insurance information (leaving a piece of blank paper on the windshield of the car he hit) and drives off. In the second story, the same man finds a wallet in the park, takes the money out, and throws the wallet into a nearby trashcan. After both stories are read, researchers would ask the participant if it was more likely that the man was a teacher, or if the man was a teacher AND x (where x is Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Rapist). Each participant was only asked about one x.

So what the story shows us is that people are more likely to perform the conjunction fallacy because of their implicit negative attitudes about Atheists as opposed to Muslims or Christians.

 

[Queller]

Unable to attribute this quote to Washington. However, it is in perfect harmony with his general religious attitude toward governance as evidenced by his many other recorded quotes that effectively say the same thing.

Such as? And please provide the original source when you reply.

 

[wanderingone]

I think there is also a belief that without a system of later reward and punishment for behavior here, you can't necessarily trust atheists to be moral.

Having a hard time letting the "to be moral" thing go... it doesn't mean anything. The morals any individual holds as their personal principles may be positive or negative to the larger society.

In any case thought.. pretending we mean the standard good person set of beliefs about not running about the world raping, pillaging and plundering - I'd question the value judgements and morals of a person who needs to believe they are getting a reward for being "moral" or good. (not implying this is your actual way of looking at things)

 

[Belk]

I'm not sure of your question, so if you need me to clarify something let me know. This post is originally from the Formal Debate Peanut Gallery.

That explained it, thank you.

 

[Queller]

We would be better off as a nation if we held certain principles safe from change.

Such as? And why?

We should hold the guilty accountable for their misdeeds instead of penalizing everyone.

Can you give an example?

 

[wanderingone]

I actually conducted a replication of this study in my undergrad. It's important to note that the study isn't saying that Atheists are held in the same regard as rapists, the study is saying that Americans are as likely to attribute immoral behavior to Atheists and rapists.

The study goes something like this:
The proctor (person conducting the study) would read two stories about a character who 1) backs their car into another vehicle and then pretends to leave a note before driving off (the piece of paper they leave is blank) and 2) find a wallet on the path in a park, take the money from the wallet, and then throw it into the trash. The participants are then asked one of the following (and only one):
1. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Christian?
2. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Muslim?
3. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and an Atheist?
4. Is this person more likely a teacher or a teacher and a Rapist?

People were more likely to attribute the bad behaviors of the man to atheists and rapists (they were about equal) than they were Muslims, and far more than they were to Christians.


So again, this does not mean that people hold Atheists in the same regard as rapists.

But... any survey that does not give any option but to choose one of those is not valid. Without the option to say they don't think any of those things necessarily impacts the reaction to the situation people are forced to pick something, and they are left to figure out what logic the folks doing the study are using and attempt to use that logic to answer the questions.

 

[Queller]

Are you hoping that by removing the 10 Commandment from the Court will enable you to commit murder and since there is no law as it was taken down you might receive a neutral judgement and walk away free? Lol.

Quite possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever read.

You do not see an organization fighting so hard against the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Buddha, or Zues or any of the Hindu gods? But why fight so hard against the Christian and Jewish God? Why?

Hmm, let's think about this. Maybe no one is fighting so hard against the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Buddha, or Zues or any of the Hindu gods because none of their followers keep trying to erect monuments to their Gods in public spaces they way we Christians have. Maybe also because those other religious believers don't continually try to have their religious beliefs forced on non-believers the way some of us Christians do?

Ever think about things like that?

BTW, if you get the chance, I am still interested in your answer to this question

How does removing a sculpture of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse or taking God's name off our money take away your Christian faith? I know it doesn't take away mine.