NEWS JUNKIE POST
Sep 19, 2009 at 11:31 amResearch Finds that Atheists are Most Hated and Distrusted Minority
Intolerance is a bitter beast. There are many groups in America that are subject to discrimination and prejudice, but none are more hated than atheists. Research conducted a couple years ago at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that atheists are more distrusted than muslims or homosexuals in the US.
Austin Cline from about.com writes, “Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It’s not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.
The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ‘sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.” The results from two of the most important questions”
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…
Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%
I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%
The degree of this intolerance is a bit surprising. My experience has taught me that atheists tend to be very intelligent, thoughtful people with a high standard of ethics that they carry through to their everyday lives.
So why the fear, why the hatred? This situation is not the norm for most of the planet. Most East and South Asian countries don’t exhibit this fear of atheists or agnostics. In fact, many of these countries have a significant portion of their population that does not believe in any deity.
European countries have large portions of the population that are atheist. There is not the mass discrimination there based on one’s freedom to believe or not to believe. About the only places in the world that tend to have intolerant attitudes are nations with strong monotheistic cultures, such as both latin and anglo America, and the Islamic countries (particularly Turkey).
Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful, it seems particularly odd that there would be a predilection towards animosity towards atheists. When one group is being discriminated against, it detracts from the freedoms of every group. A society based on tolerance must support the rights of minority groups, including atheists.
I don’t drink.
I think it’s okay to drink or use drugs to get intoxicated, but not too often.
I don’t eat meat (or try not to eat meat).
It’s okay to eat meat, but you do have to kill to obtain meat, and killing’s not good.
I don’t cheat on my partner.
I think it’s okay to have sex outside of marriage.
I don’t steal.
I am honest when I file my taxes.
When wronged, I try to make things right.
I try not to cuss too much. It’s a kind of verbal violence.
I believe that it’s our duty to reduce poverty.
We are all responsible to each other.
I try not to pollute, though I still drive a car.
I try to pick up litter from my street, though it’s difficult.
I oppose war and violence, and try to reduce it in my life.
I believe in forgiveness.
I believe in religious freedom.
I am an atheist.
I do not believe in God or gods.
“you do have to kill to obtain meat, and killing’s not good.”
a delusional viewpoint if there ever was one. No one expressing it ever wants to take responsibility for the result of not eating meat…
“take responsibility for the result of not eating meat” WTF does that mean?
I was wondering that myself.
Maybe he meant no one wants to take the responsibility for killing to eat meat and accidentally said “not” eating meat?
none of you seem to get if we quit eating meat and using animal species there are a few dozen species we need to eliminate. Keeping them around while not using them is environmentally unsound
So you’re saying we have a responsibility to “use” animals for meat out of concern for the species’ survival?
LOL, no.
I am both a vegetarian and an atheist. I don’t eat meat because I don’t believe that we should slay animals and consume their flesh just because we can, or they taste good. However, my girlfriend is omnivorous. I don’t try to convert people. I mind my business. Do I think killing is wrong? Yes. I don’t believe anyone has a right to take a life. And I was raised christian and on meat, but changed my views in adulthood. I have done ignorant things in my past, but I am regretful of them and try to do my best to make up for them, even if it isn’t always possible. But I try to do what I feel is my part.
Very confusing statment
What is the result of not eating meat? It’s our responsibility to not eat meat? I’m confused…
no he is correct – not eating meat usually also kills whether you want it to happen or not, the fields required to grow vegetables/soy end up killing animals by removing them from their homes or killing them with the harvesting machines themselves.
the only solution i see as possible would be to just be self-sufficient in your food supply.
I dislike how people have to connect things that are good with god and bad with the devil the decisions people make are decisions they decided to make.
I don’t care about god if he is there he is there and if there is heaven i hope i get to go there. I don’t know what is in heaven or hell and I don’t want to know because then I might be looking forward to something thats not going to happen.
I celebrate Christmas because its a happy time of the year when people loosen up more and laugh .
Many of the worlds problems stem from people not being able to absorb something negative and instead bounce back with more force to the aggressor
People ask to many questions and don’t do enough sometimes things are just the way they are and you if you don’t like it try to change it.
Many people who say bad things about people and beliefs have either never met the person or experienced the belief they are talking about or simply seeing the person once instantly draws their conclusions. For example many capitalists that complain about socialists and communists have never been to a socialist or communist country.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism have inspired more violence than all the other religions combined because they don’t tolerate each other. How can there be so many different Buddhists tolerating so many people from so many different cultures while The big three keep killing each other where ever they meet.I don’t understand where this insensitivity comes from. Anyone with an answer to my question please reply and maybe I can get a deeper understanding of this.
You have a wrong image of Buddhists. Just to let you know: Buddhists are just as bad as everybody else.
In Tibet, they’ll eat meat and carry their knife on them all the time. knife fighting isn’t something so uncommon. in india the Buddhists pray for the death of all Muslims because of the conflict they have with them.
if you’ll go to Buddhists countries you’ll see that they’re no different that the rest.
Just like you don’t want to associate the good things with god, and the bad things with the devil. You associate violence with those religions when the fact is that religion did not cause them to be violent, actually in being violent they are misusing their religions. so blame the person and not the religion.
It seems to me that most modern laws that result in the suppression of expressions of belief or faith are in response to atheist demands.
I’m just wondering, not in disrespect or anything, but what are your beliefs based on? I understand that you don’t believe in a deity, but I guess I’m just confused. I didn’t understand what atheists believed, or if they even had beliefs. I guess the reason people are so afraid is that they worry atheists can justify anything because they assume they have no belief therefore have no sense of consequence. I just wonder how you can say something is “not good.” What is that based on? Your knowledge of instinct and the instinct to preserve life? Where does that instinct come from? How do you justify your morals?
The short answer is that most morals are derived from society, and most members of a society — regardless of their religion, unless their religion also determines their society — will share many of those morals. The long answer, which I find more satisfactory, is that it’s possible to derive a code of ethical behavior from first principles as simple as “harm is bad.” While this code can (but does not have to) resemble Utilitarianism in many cases, it’s certainly more internally consistent and often a good deal “kinder” than the moral codes codified by the Great Religions.
Disbelief isn’t a belief, dude. Typical Christian pretzel logic you have going on. You can’t just make stuff up out of thin air, whether it be an invisible superfriend or an opposite. Actually your thoughtline [everything is bipolar] reflects a subconscious acknowledgment of antimatter and quantum mechanics, which contradicts your indoctrination. You’re already a gnostic!
I respect, have active friendships with, and get along generally with all persons regardless of race, religion/non-religion, creed.
But what I do find is that atheists are VERY more likely to say things like “religious people should be forced by govt to shut up” and “all religious people need to be killed”.
The attempt of this article to portray atheists as innocent sweet angels being blindsided by pure bigotry-without-a-cause is dishonest.
That is such an ignorant statement in and of itself. It really reduces the plausibility of your first statement.
Generally, the only time I see my Atheist friends say hateful things about religious people is in response to feeling that people are obligating them to believe in religion rather than making it a choice or convincing them with reason. Either that or they react in kind against discrimination for not believing in a god – in example the people on the bus who confront us and say that we’re going to suffer in hell for not wanting to sit there listening to what they have to say. I’m not going to say if they don’t listen to me explain the deficiency the scientists in Jurassic park genetically built into the dinosaurs as a safeguard, they’re going to suffer for all of eternity
Personally, I’m one of those “Innocent sweet angels” being blindsided by bigotry. I file my taxes on time and in full. I’ve never been arrested. I try to give more than I receive from all of those around me. I believe in celebrating Christmas and weddings as general celebrations rather than following their religious meanings (as in: weddings are the coming together of two people creating a life-long bond, not under god but just basically making a set of promises to each other; Christmas is a time to be respectful of the fact that it’s amazing that you’re even alive at that point in time to be there for it, and you should spend it with family). I would NEVER cheat on anybody. I don’t believe in callous disposal of life, I believe life has value; though, not necessarily a set purpose to it. I believe in right and wrong. I believe in most of the good ethics and morals that religion teaches – I just don’t believe in the stories that the books all tell.
And most athiests I know are the exact same way. It’s the same thing like with customer service, though – in example: one million people buy an HP computer, and one of them has a bad experience with theirs. The 999,999 people are just going through their day not noticing, not saying anything to anybody – maybe a few hundred, if that, will talk about how exceptional it is. But that one person will be screaming louder than anybody and getting their hateful message out to each end of the earth.
James, Weebles is only stating his observation, so it’s not an “ignorant” statement. My experience is different than Weebles’, but you can’t shut him down for stating an observation.
Yes, you can.
The statement made about atheists wanting people of all religious beliefs to shut up or that they should be killed is wrong. Any atheist I’ve interacted with takes a “live and let live” viewpoint on all aspects in life. There is a partial truth to the involvement in government, only because we believe that the government has no right to impose any one belief set in the form of religion on its people.
If believing some damnation awaits you for doing any wrongs unto your fellow man, that’s perfectly fine. Just don’t discriminate against anyone who may have different ideas about how live morally and just lives. Not just atheists, but those with other cultural backgrounds as well.
Funny. Seems like you don’t have exactly the same experience as weebles.
people. atheist or not. who cares? can’t we all just hit a bong?
Yes, I’m sure it’s happened to you many times that you’ve heard an atheist say that religous people should be killed.
I’m also sure most of the atheists you’ve met are for bigger government…ya know, with a massively funded “Department of Shutting Up the Religous.”
:rolleyes:
You are what makes this article true
What the heck does that mean?
I don´t know where you live, but I´ve never heard anyone say anything along the lines “all religious people should be killed”. Many of my friends are atheists like me but I also have a lot christian, muslim and buddhist friends – I basically don´t care about a persons´s religion as long as they don´t try to convert me (something only christians try to do in my personal experience).
I would never want anyone to be killed because of their religion. All I´m hoping for is less religion in the future.
“All I´m hoping for is less religion in the future.”
Amen!!!
All I’m hoping for is less atheism in the future!
(Watch this comment get voted down)
I wouldn’t expect this to be rated down (at +1 now). As an Atheist, I view this comment as a personal opinion and in no way effects anyone. Giving your opinion is a good thing as long as it doesn’t disrespect others.
At time of writing, Axiomatic gets +15, Kal gets +13, and Jadd gets -11.
Ah, but the secular culture is trying to exercise any form of religion from the systems that affect everyone (like education). More specifically, Christianity is currently the target as it is more predominant within the system. I watch as the laws enacted are portrayed as a means of universal tolerance while everyone silently knows that the real target the Christian culture because the Christian culture doesn’t tolerate the same beliefs as the secular one.
Example: conscience protection laws in medical practice. A nurse is required by law to perform an abortion, but finds it morally horrifying to do so. The common answer to this is that she can always make a “choice” to refuse, BUT lose her job in the process. The secular culture is backing Christians into a corner.
I also happened to notice that any comment criticizing the article is receiving a negative score. There’s a bias
Why would a Christian work at an abortion clinic?
We give you a bad score because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s “excise” not “exercise”. Excise means cut out. exercise means, well, yeah. and sweetn0thing mankes an excelent point. practicing christians tend not to work in abortion clinics.
What does mankes mean? And excellent has two Ls.
It wasn’t an abortion clinic but rather a hospital. That IS a place where many Christians work, and it also happens to be a place where abortions are performed.
(also, sorry for not proofing my comment; it must have been distracting )
More people have been killed in the name of ”religion” than all other reasons combined. Less religion would certainly be better for the world we live in.
I very much agree. The article looks to be portraying atheists as morally and intellectually superior, as evidenced by the quote, “My experience has taught me that atheists tend to be very intelligent, thoughtful people with a high standard of ethics that they carry through to their everyday lives.”
I personally have never heard religious friends say hateful things against atheists (even in all my time in a Catholic high school, I never heard atheist bashing, or calls for and end to atheism), but I have heard atheist friends ridicule or belittle the religious. Now, it could be that it was just the people I met, and to be fair, I do know decent atheists who don’t insult religious people, but this is only from my personal experience.
The statement of atheist nations being more peaceful also is just not true (the People’s Republic of China, the former USSR, and North Korea). Unfortunately, some people still don’t realize correlation is not causation (or just willfully twist statistics). For a fun manipulation of statistics, the countries listed as more peaceful are predominately white, while the ones listed as less peaceful are predominately not… so would you conclude that white people are more peaceful of all races (I really hope not, but if you buy into the correlation = causation deal, you might)? Or for that matter, ants typically score lower on standard IQ tests than humans, yet are less religious than humans (the same can be said of other non-humans). Therefore, there must be some link between high intelligence and religion, right? The point I’m making is that before you run with these statistics to try proving atheists are better than religious people, it would help to actually look at them critically since statistics can be often molded to fit a particular preconceived notion.
China, USSR and North Korea are not really examples of atheist societies – in each case, they were dominated by the quasi religion of Marxism, and in the case of North Korea, worship of the Dear Leader. Atheist-leaning cultures are better exemplified by Sweden, where there is not an authoritarian ideology that has nothing to do with theism.
Now, wait a second. This man was simply asking that we don’t throw out statistics without including all information. He was asking us to simply be critical, and logical, yet he was downvoted. Please, explain this to me.
I would guess he was voted down because while his intent was fine, his analogies were poor. His examples were all basically communist dictatorships and he left out other less aggressive countries that are more democratic etc like Sweden.
I consider myself more agnostic than atheist. Agnostic – as I see it – can be defined as “Well, regarding God or gods, there’s really no way to know for sure.” Thus all we are left with is belief (not to be confused with faith).
There should also be a distinction drawn between atheism and *anti-theism*. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God or gods. I would say some portion of proclaimed atheists are actually anti-theists, those who assert that there is no God. Some of these people might even believe that having faith in God is a stupid thing to do.
However, it takes a certain kind of person – regardless of one’s standing on God – to wish for the oppression or murder of an entire group of people.
“But what I do find is that atheists are VERY more likely to say things like “religious people should be forced by govt to shut up” and “all religious people need to be killed”.”
That’s funny. I find that Christians are VERY more likely to say things like “atheists are sinners who should suffer in Hell”.
I’ve personally heard only one Christian person say that in my experiences and I’ve never heard an atheist say any of the things you mentioned. But I guess you do have a point. A religious person is less likely to call for the extermination of religious people than a non-religious person would be. Then again, people named Bob are less likely to call of the extermination of people named Bob than people named Jeff would be. I guess people named Jeff are just bad people.
My problem with that statement is as follows. Of course atheists are more likely to advocate the killing of all religious people, what sort of people would advocate mass killings of their own group. I have observed that religious people are much more prone to advocate the killing of all atheists.
so far, in my experience, i’ve been offended by more atheists than religious people – which really sucks cos i’m not religious myself! i think the problem is when some self-proclaimed atheists approach atheism with religious zeal – then they’re no longer un-believing in a god, but pushing their non-religion onto everyone else. they’re anti-theists giving the a-theists a bad name.
faith in god or not-a-god is personal – it’s your individual view of the world; it should be respected. of course atheists will be hated & distrusted if it looks like they’re being just as bad as religious zealots.
sad, sad.
Many of the ‘Athiests’ who insult and spread bile about Religion are often young teenagers with little to no understanding of the world around them.
As an Athiest I do not believe in any form of God but I do not discourage others from doing so, so long as it doesn’t result in the harm of themselves or anyone else.
And Weebles, of COURSE Athiests are more likely to say those things, why would a religious person? I find Religious people are ‘VERY’ more likely to say “Jesus loves you, repent or go to hell” – something I find offensive.
Isn’t this a form of bias in the same line of thought as discrimination against atheism that you just displayed? Clearly it’s a good idea to separate the “good” atheists from the “dumb” atheists and play the game of recursive semantics until you exclude everyone you don’t like.
Oh wait.
In any event, there are people that like to force their opinions on all sides of every fence, and it comes across as ignorant no matter where you stand on the issue. Making comments that make a prejudgement on what of divisions you can put up between yourself and those you feel are lesser is pretty shoddy, and really doesn’t support your point.
And I’m really gonna laugh if someone guesses what my beliefs are based on this comment
I’d guesstimate jewish or muslim and sincerely hope that I will bring at least a little smile on your face, David!
As for this whole debate, at present it seems a fun happy flamefest of definitions and who outwits who! This saddens me. So here is my point of view so I can win myself +2 smartpoints!
I think it’s besides the point WHAT you believe, be it absolutely nothing, religion or a slightly less common idea that crimson spacecows built the planet we now call earth in the year 1897! What’s important is that you can openly allow people to have their beliefs and focus on the awesome side to your viewpoints rather than what flaws the others may have.
Aside from that it would be neat if we could also keep religion seperate from politics. Thanks for your time reading my self-important comment. I feel much better having voiced out.
< atheist I know no atheists who wish for believers to be killed. (probability states someone said it possibly) As far as an anti-religous zeal, I have it. I feel that magic and superstition has held us back as a people too long and wish for others to break that cage. I do not want to see any deitys invoked in politics or maters of the real world. I live in a town with a church every few miles, with god on my money, and with a "faith and values" section in my paper. To claim that the few atheists who speak out (most are quiet and just pity you) are "in your face" or offensive is laughable.
Wow, I’m glad that the country I love so much loves me right back
I knew I was part of a rather disliked minority, but almost 1 out of 2? Thats disappointing. I hold myself to a high set of standards that I made for myself, and just because I believe I can make better decisions than an omniscient being I’ve never communicated with in any way shouldn’t make me the target of all this hate.
I am not infallible. While I do not believe in a higher power, I do not discount the idea that I could be wrong. Faith and lack of faith should be personal issues kept out of the public forum. For me to say to a Christian, “you’re wrong, there is no God,” is just as much BS self-rightiousness as a Christian telling me I am going to Hell for not believing.
I absolutely agree with your last point. Aetheists can be just as insufferable as religious zealots.
I strongly suspect that religious types hate & fear atheists because they have a deep inner knowledge that there is no God and thus are envious of the freedom atheists have.
” Most East and South Asian countries don’t exhibit this fear of atheists or agnostics. In fact, many of these countries have a significant portion of their population that does not believe in any deity.”
People who do not believe in any deity are not necessarily atheists.
Atheists specifically believe that no gods exists.
Agnostics do not have any beliefs regarding the issue.
The study doesn’t seem to say anything about agnostics in the first place.
Atheism is not a belief in no gods, it is a lack of belief. It’s like saying you believe there are no 17 foot tall invisible pink unicorns. You either believe or you don’t believe; not believe in the positive version (there is) or believe in the negative (there isn’t).
Agnostics believe the nature of god is fundamentally unattainable so are essentially saying “maybe yes, maybe no”.
Question for the people here who feel offended or belittled by atheists: How exactly do you feel atheists should should respond to religious people?
I think the “problem” (which religious people have concerning non-believers) is at the very nature of what an atheist is. Generally, they actually aren’t trying to disrespect or belittle, but the core concepts of atheism pretty much guarantee that the religious will always be offended by atheists, simply because of that. And if you get them into a discussion on religion, there is only a few types of responses they can give you, all of which you wont like, or will feel belittled/offended by. And this is simply due to the nature of what religious people believe, as well.
I’m a little too agnostic to speak for real atheists, but sometimes it seems like religious people will only be happy, if atheists never talked about the issue at all. And in reality, that “solution” just doesn’t help anything.
They don’t want us to respond. They want anyone who doesn’t believe to keep their mouths shut and stay out of their way while they continue to bully people into believing their way.
Were you talking about atheists or religious people there?
I’m speaking of the religious
I think there’s a psychological reason why, mainly, religious people mistrust atheists: they feel it as a personal attack on their belief in a god. Apparently they feel insecure about their belief in something that is unproven and unlikely and atheists make them aware of their ‘childish’ behaviour. Religious people don’t want to have to think about their belief, because that brings up their own insecurities and doubts about their religion. Just like everyone with a strong belief in anything, actually. People with an equally strong, but different belief on that subject are better tolerated than people with disbelief.
The sin of pride rarely hits home on those with so much hubris. Furthermore they don’t want to think about their belief, because they are indoctrinated from a young age that thinking about what they are taught is a sin, it shows a lack of faith on the part of the thinker.
Brad, with all your condemnation, you’ve demonstrated yourself to exemplify the reason that people dislike atheists.
When we toss your words back at you it pisses you off doesn’t it. Too bad.
BTW You should be glad I choose not to be a leader of the rather popular non believer movement, I believe is assassinations…
Mike said:
“Atheists specifically believe that no gods exists.”
That remains to be seen. It’s a question of semantics, really: either an atheist believes there is no god or an atheist does not believe there is a god. In the first case, he does believe something, namely that there is no god. In the second case the does NOT believe. It may seem like ‘playing with words’, but there is a significant difference.
Of course those that believe can’t understand there is a difference, and even if they could it still wouldn’t matter. We are talking about people who regularly mistrust facts as a simple matter of faith.
Brad-
I’m an atheist. Please, Brad, please- stop speaking on my behalf. If you wish to discuss what YOU believe (or don’t, semantically speaking), stop saying “we”. I’m NOT on your side. I’m not on anybody’s side.
I just don’t believe.
That’s all. No magic, no conviction, no nothing. Just a recess. I have been told of the presence of God in his or her various forms, and I’ve never felt them. I don’t really care if people understand me or not. I would sincerely hope that no one discriminates against me, but I suppose to some extent that cannot be helped- convictions are meant to be strong, and people act upon them.
I just hope that in the country I live in (US), we strive to protect everyone who believes similarly.
That’s not entirely correct. An atheist, by definition, is one who has decided there are no gods, whereas an agnostic is one who does not know, one way or the other.
Would you people stop saying that?
An atheist has not “decided” there are no gods, nor does he “believe” there are no gods!
An atheist has NOT decided/chosen to believe. Belief in a god(s) is NOT the default.
moral = one who is moral
amoral = one who is NOT moral
theist = one who believes in the divine
atheist = one who DOES NOT believe in the divine
the “a” prefix has specific meaning. it is a negation of what follows. atheism is NOT a positive structure (I believe there are no gods). it is a response to a positive structure (i have no belief).
conversely, agnosticism IS a positive structure. it is the belief that we, as humans CAN NOT know the nature of the divine, including it’s existence.
Very well said.
Also consider the positive structure antitheism, which is an active opposition to theism.
You are incorrect. You should really look it up.
Moral = one who is moral.
Immoral = one who is not moral.
Amoral = Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
Make of that what you will.
that was kinda my point. amoral means, more or less, outside morals. not partaking in morals.
it does NOT mean “one who believes morals don’t exist” or even “one who acts counter to ‘good’ morals” (that’s what immoral is).
Yah, no way i would trust an athiest, no way, no how.
RT
http://www.real-privacy.net.tc
But I you are more than willing to trust greedy manipulative, sinning (by your own defintions) politicians because they profess a believe in your god and jesus’s ability to forgive their sins committed in your best interest. You and your lot are nothing but hypocrites…
Brad, you’re confused. Jon is a spambot. He doesn’t believe anything.
lol
well that was abit of a fail
I think the reason people dislike atheists is that there is a vocal subset of atheists who not only do not believe in God, but preach their religion with the same vehemence as Billy Graham.
Also, many atheists are critical of the religious, seeing them as feeble-minded, when in fact a belief in a deity has little or nothing to do with one’s intelligence.
However it has allot to do with what can be proved and what can’t be proved and what is illogical.
I have nothing against people who believe in god but it is when people say they know what is going to happen when we die and this is what you should do on this day and yadayada. It doesn’t make sense that god what contact one person and ask them to speak to the world, if he could speak to one person he could speak to all of us if he was so almighty and powerful. There are many people who claim there are miracles and such but almost any event can be proved scientificly or logically.
“…atheists who not only do not believe in God, but preach their religion…”
0_o
You… demonstrate a clear and fundamental lack of understanding of this subject…
The vocal subset of atheists to whom you refer are simply reacting to decades of having fundamentalists trying to force their beliefs on everyone–and, increasingly, trying to insert their religious doctrines into federal, state, and local governments and into the educational system. I, for one, am happy to see intelligent non-believers arguing for their position. We’ve been silent long enough.
So you’re saying it’s all right? Two wrongs make a right? Or maybe being vocal and offensive isn’t wrong after all?
It is not “wrong” to assert your beliefs–even to do so strongly–when you believe others are attempting to force their beliefs down your throat. Which came first: Strident atheists or fundamentalist Christian blowhards?
So it’s two wrongs make a right.
More like the elephant charging the hunter.
While Atheism or Religion might have “little or nothing to do with one’s intelligence,” they do indicate a lot about how the person chooses what they call “truth”. In particular, the religious person calls true that which they have been told by a respected authority (e.g., the bible, the koran, a parent, a minister, etc.). Most atheists are people who require some level of evidence for a belief before acknowledging that belief as truth.
This is a fundamental distinction of world-view: do you believe what you’ve been told, or what you understand? If it’s the first (religious world-view), almost no argument will change your mind, unless it comes from a respected figure of authority (e.g., the Pope). If it’s the second, (rational world-view) then you will often find yourself mistaken, but you can incorporate that change easily into your understanding of the world. *What* you call truth is trivial compared to *why* you have decided it’s true.
In the years since the advent of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, the rational world-view has won-over almost all of the world’s scientists and intellectuals. Thus, in our world today, atheism *is* very strongly correlated with both intelligence and education.
Has anyone considered the weight of the word “athiest” in this study?
I’d like to see how the data changed if they used the term “non-religious.” I suspect the results would be dramatically different – the word athiest carries with it much more than it’s definition, and cleary sparks fear and anger in many Americans.
Overall, I don’t think it’s a fair to conclude that half of Americans would dissaprove of a child marrying someone non-religious (I want to give the US more credit than that).
Agreed.
And “god gave me the mind to doubt his existence, and thus, I do.”
I disagree. It’s not the same. Someone who is non-religious is not necessarily the same as one who does not believe in the existence of a god.
I, for instance, do believe in God, but I don’t believe in religion. So I am non-religious, but not an atheist.
Incidentally, Kelele, a more correct term would probably be “deist”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
This is a good point. A lot of people think they’re aethest, but they’re actually just non-religious. Many people haven’t considered what aetheist means, but they just want to be associated with it because it sounds cool.
If pressed, many aetheists will agree that they’re actually agnostic. It takes the same kind of faith to be an aetheist that it does to be a believer in a god or intelligent energy.
Non-religious is a general classification that includes atheists, agnostics, deists, and many other more specific ones. Its a popular response primarily because its so general, and doesn’t pigeon hole you.
Incorrect. It doesn’t take any kind of faith to be an atheist. In fact, faith has nothing to do with it, although religious people often try to claim that it does, and that atheism is a religion. It is not.
There is no universal definition of God. To many a belief in God is just an acceptance of a minimal morals, thou shall not kill, steal, lie. Commandments common to all creeds. To claim to be atheist is to reject morals. Most atheists would be more correct to claim they are not Christian. But if they really don’t accept minimal society morals, then the atheist tag fits. And to be appalled by this group is not bigotry it is good sense.
“To claim to be atheist is to reject morals.”
Not true. For a concrete example, buddhist do not believe in a God or creator (Buddha was just the title given to their teacher), but they have a strong set of morals and ethics.
Ah, but Buddhists are not atheists, are they?
Wait, are they?
Technically, they are. Buddha, however, was not an Atheist. He was Hindu. Buddhism arose from Hinduism, but, unlike Hinduism, is not theistic.
Yes, they are; they do not believe in a creator, god, hell, heaven, sins…
Buddha did not talk about god in his teachings…
Sorry, but belief in god or gods has nothing to do with morality. These ‘commandments’ you lay claim to merely derive from common sense; a society in which people killed each other, stole from each other etc. would not last very long. Most atheists *do* have a highly developed sense of morals – because we don’t simply accept what we are told, we prefer to think about things ourselves. You misunderstand what it is to not believe in the existence of gods.
Soooo you need god to tell you not to kill people or to steal each others stuff and to tell the truth
my wife, who has a degree in philosophy, would be quick to point out that the historical use of the term “moral” has been strongly linked to the idea of the divine. she would argue, from a semantic point of view that no, atheists are NOT technically “moral” since morality is concerned with what is “right” and without a divine mandate, what is “right” is open to interpretation.
ETHICS, on the other hand, are not linked to the divine and therefore there is no reason why an atheist cannot be an ethical person (as I consider myself to be). and in fact, there are times when what is MORAL to a religious person (for instance, wanting to cure a gay person of the “sin” of homosexuality based on their moral system) is clearly NOT ethical.
I’ll take my ethics over religious morals any day of the week, and twice on sunday
Gracias Jeremy… you were by far more accurate than me in your choice of words… that’s what I had in mind… In my opinion, I think it can be more productive or assertive to discuss ethics vs morals, than atheism vs theism…
“I’ll take my ethics over religious morals any day of the week, and twice on sunday”- cheers to that!
Thank you
Excellently put. However, such ethics are, just like moral for anyone who does not believe in a higher being that dictates that moral, open to interpretation and debate. Nevertheless, for the sake of the discussion it would be nice to make some sort of difference between moral/ethics of someone who believes in a higher being that dictates it and those of someone who does not believe in such a being of who does not believe that such a being dictates such moral/ethics.
Another thing is, that although religious people have moral that is theoretically ‘fixed’ still have differences in its interpretation amongst themselves.
Moral, Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
Morality was tied directly to religion during the Victorian period, but originally it’s used to describe a correct or “customary” behavior.
But in general, I do agree with you point.
So I had a friend who, at the hospital, was pronounced legally dead for seven minutes before they revived him. It was pretty intense. Anyway, since he was technically dead for a little while, I asked him what he saw.
“Were there lights, did you feel anything?” I asked.
“No man, it was just dark until they revived me,” he said.
Just thought I might share.
Wow, that proves it — thanks. In fact, I had the same thing happen to me: Last night I was sleeping and then I woke up.
Same thing happened to me when my appendix burst inside me and leaked toxins throughout my body. I had flatlined and had to be revived. It was exactly like your friend said. It was dark, but I was not scared at all. It just seemed boring to me.
Then I woke up in the post op room. I thank the Doctors and nurses for keeping me alive, not some imaginary friend in the sky.
Er, note that you should know exactly what it’s like being dead– all that time before you were born!
I think the major problem is a lack of understanding. The top two hated groups, Atheists and Muslims, are the two least understood religious groups in the US.
When people see an extremist Atheist or Muslim they just assume they represent the whole population instead of being just like that guy at a major public gathering holding the “repent or go to hell sign”. Its funny how just because they understand the divides in different Christian sects that they can accept a radical Christian as the fringe but noooo, no other group of could possibly exhibit the same phenomenon.
Anyway, people in general could use a big dose of empathy and understanding for those around them. Am an atheist, noone seems to notice, or care, just don’t force my way into religious conversations, cause they don’t matter to me.
Christians are mass murderers. Stalin and Hitler were trained priests, and in carrying out the second inquisition they burned 18 million. Why go to the trouble of burning if only murder is the goal? SS is a Vatican priesthood from 1500 which became Himlers Nazi SS which became the US SS [Secret Service] after Himler’s SS Nazis were imported wholesale into the Americas.
Communism is merely the Vatican-approved lifestyle for believers. Catholic Jesuits deployed in in Paraguay and then seeded their revolutionaries worldwide.
Oops, I think a history book got on your keyboard and took a dump.
Yuck, what a mess.
Hitler was a Teutonic neo-pagan. Read his writings sometime. He was *ed up and definitely anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. He believed that since Teutonic paganism originated in Germany, it was the only “right” belief system.
First Himmler had control of the SS, not Hitler. Second Hitler was a trained Catholic priest. Third, there are hundreds of photos of the Pope and cardinals with Hitler, attending functions. You can wallow in ignorance with MSM distortions, or simple look at the facts. Catholicism stole Pagan rituals, so you are right about the neo-paganism.
As a military order of the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum (SS) were bestowed by the legal orders of the Roman Pontiff on behalf of the Mother Church to wage constant Holy Inquisition against all heretics, including assassinations, torture and counter-intelligence, to protect the name of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and directly represent the interests of the Holy See as its primary order of Holy Knights– the SS (Sedes Sacrorum or Holy See).
Upon the appointment of Fr Heinrich Himmler S.J. in 1929 to the NSDAP in Germany, a new Nazi SS (Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum) Army of several hundred thousand was created by 1939 to wage the single greatest Inquisition ever undertaken by the Roman Cult– with over 18 million innocent people burned alive in ovens in Russia and Poland.
The German SS were disbanded at the end of World War II, with the Roman Scroll of the SS being handed to the United States SS (Secret Service/Sedes Sacrorum) by 1945. The United States SS was officially created into a military/spiritual force after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. After the staged gun-fight outside Blair House in 1950, the United States SS have had absolute protection of the President of the United States, holding him a virtual prisoner of the State under the guise of official protection.
“There are many groups in America that are subject to discrimination and prejudice, but none are more hated than atheists. Research conducted a couple years ago at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that atheists are more distrusted than muslims or homosexuals in the US.”
Sentence 2 says atheists are distrusted. That does not equal the word “hated” in sentence one.
Sentence 2 suggests (but, I admit, does not exactly say) it is a surprise that atheists are more distrusted than muslims or homosexuals. It’s almost like people are supposed to distrust those two groups more. Wonder why?
Finally, @ rossiya who said “Christians are mass murderers.”: Even if your facts are correct, I suppose everyone is a murderer because someone from every facet of society has killed someone? i.e. person A is a member of X group and person A killed someone therefore X group members are murderers. Bit of a leap…
Nazis are a Catholic organization. 1933 marks the first year the religious word Nazi (from Hebrew Nasi meaning “Knight”) was used as the official new name of the NDSAP in government.
The Nazi SS also known as “SS” — a shortened name for the “Knights of the Holy See” is a Roman Catholic spiritual and military order first formed in 1933 based completely upon the Jesuit order structure upon the signing of the “sacred” Reich Concordat between Franz von Papen (on behalf of Nazi Germany) and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (Pope Pius XII).
The term Nazi was first publicly used as the rebranded name for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) in 1933 upon devout Catholic leader –known as “Father” or Führer–(Fr.) Adolf Hitler assuming office as German Chancellor.
Wow… telling how it is OK to spout unsubstantiated lies about Catholics, and you get modded up. First of all, read up on Hitler’s religious beliefs. The short version is that he was crazy, hated Christianity, but went looking for Christian artifacts to use as a way of rallying the German people. The Nazis tried to use Christian symbols and references to brainwash Germany into thinking that by following Hitler, they were actually doing their Christian duty, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Really it would be inaccurate to place him in any religion.. he was just a whack job willing to use any method at his disposal to increase his power over the masses.
The only unsubstantiated notions are yours Alex. There are thousands of documents linking the Vatican directly to Hitler’s Germany and incineration of 18 million. You need to prove I am lying. You can’t just make up junk because you’re a whack cultist. Except in you cult, perhaps. Funny, you exhibit the exact behavior the article assigns to atheists. Are you diagnosed with BPD?
There are no supernatural creatures. Those that worship non-existent creatures are terribly threatened by persons that recognize man’s longing to have a mythology, regardless of how silly and unreal. I am an ape and do not have a soul. So are you and you don’t either.
I like aetheists, but I prefer agnostics. I tend to like people who say, “I’m not sure if I have the answer,” or “Reality is so profound that we are probably not even asking the right questions.”
But someone who says, “I know that there is no intelligence out there” is sometimes as closed-minded as, say, a fundamentalist Christian.
I find that aestheists feel it’s an alternative to believing in religion. It’s not — it’s the alternative to acknowledging the possibility of some intelligent or organizing energy. I’m always disappointed in aetheist literature, because it attacks religion (a rather easy target). I’m not interested in relgion, but I’m not an aetheist.
That said, often if you press an aestheist, they’ll admit that their views are more in-line with agnosticism. There is a certain self-satisfaction that some people get when they claim to be an aesthesic — they see themself as ballsy or something. Once they get over that, they become a bit more open-minded.
Good grief. All this baggage associated with such a simple word. Atheism. A-theism. “Without theism.” That’s all it means. I am an atheist. I live my life without a belief that there is a supernatural being (or beings) overseeing the progress of the universe. If pressed, I will admit that it’s POSSIBLE that there is (or was) some sort of “god,” although I see no reason to believe that’s true, and lots of reason to believe it isn’t. So, by your definition, I’m agnostic. By my definition, I’m an atheist. To-MAY-toe, to-MAH-toe. Either way you look at it, I don’t believe in a god or gods any more than I believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. But I suppose there COULD be an Easter Bunny–so I guess I’m really agnostic on that, too. Sheesh.
CatP said; “I like aetheists, but I prefer agnostics. I tend to like people who say, “I’m not sure if I have the answer,” or “Reality is so profound that we are probably not even asking the right questions.””
But, you would “prefer to like” someone that claims to have the answer?! I just don’t know where to start with you CatP or most of the other people on this blog who are so filled with intolerance and often hatred.
An atheist is simply a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. That’s Websters definition, not mine. I disagree with this definition because, I don’t believe you can deny something that does not exist.
Don’t make it any more than it is people. You are all atheists. Unless, you believe in all the religions, and all of the Gods. What is it you do not understand about this particular fact? Every religion has a different set of beliefs and a different version of their God. You just choose to believe in one more God than I do.
CatP said; “But someone who says, “I know that there is no intelligence out there” is sometimes as closed-minded as, say, a fundamentalist Christian.”
This is a typical fabrication of your understanding of an atheist. As an atheist, I can only speak for myself, but because I don’t believe in your Christian or Muslim God does not mean “I know there is no intelligence out there”. What is intelligence anyway CatP? Isn’t it using your mind to make decisions based on intellectual reasoning?
CatP said; “That said, often if you press an aestheist, they’ll admit that their views are more in-line with agnosticism. There is a certain self-satisfaction that some people get when they claim to be an aesthesic — they see themself as ballsy or something. Once they get over that, they become a bit more open-minded.”
It’s amazing how you people turn things around to justify your beliefs. An atheist would be more “open-minded” if they opened their mind to believe in an entity that they have no rational explanation for! Now, that is a bit confusing. If you would open your mind CatP to the possibility that the God you worship is a figment of your imagination than you would be open minded. It is arrogant and hubris to be so certain of something that you cannot prove the existence of, and worse to condemn me because I don’t believe you. And worse again to ridicule me and judge me because I don’t follow your path.
Its the Gay Hispanics that arrived recently who dont believe in god that have it hardest
…and they are SO jealous of how easy it is for the recently arrived gay hispanic muslims! They get ALL the breaks.
First up, I am not an atheist, but I used to be one. Now that that tidbit is out of the way…
I am a Christian. While I do share my faith with others, I do not “come down” on them, nor do I condemn. yes, I firmly believe in heaven and hell and eternity, but I know that shouting or belittling will do nothing to change anyone’s mind or beliefs.
Every person has the freedom to make up his or her own mind as to what they choose to believe, whether to believe in God or not. I am responsible for my own decisions and what I do with them, not the decisions of others.
Nothing personal, this is not an attack on your beliefs, but you were probably never actually an atheist.
You’re free to believe that if you wish.
To believe is to know you believe, and to know you believe is not to believe.
– Jean-Paul Sartre
I agree. People are free to choose what they want to believe in. I honestly don’t care, I just don’t like some of the attitudes you can find on both sides.
Also, I don’t like that someone gave this a thumbs-down when all you did was state your opinion without attacking anyone.
Atheists and agnostics are rationalists in that we hold scrutiny to that which others accept on the face value of tradition, and that we now hold over 20% of the population and rising, as the advent of the internet has been a great median for spreading intellectual curiosity … besides, the only thing that religious people have to fear from atheists is the occasional conversation where we use evidence, logic and reason in an attempt to make you question your faith … for example, there has never been a religious dogma that has been free of internal contradiction which has stood unchanged throughout the cultural test of time without either being split into disputing factions or been partially disproven through scientific advance …
I like aetheists, but I prefer agnostics. I tend to like people who say, “I’m not sure if I have the answer,” or “Reality is so profound that we are probably not even asking the right questions.”
But someone who says, “I know that there is no intelligence out there” is sometimes as closed-minded as, say, a fundamentalist Christian.
I find that aestheists feel it’s an alternative to believing in religion. It’s not — it’s the alternative to acknowledging the possibility of some intelligent or organizing energy. I’m always disappointed in aetheist literature, because it attacks religion (a rather easy target). I’m not interested in relgion, but I’m not an aetheist.
That said, often if you press an aestheist, they’ll admit that their views are more in-line with agnosticism. There is a certain self-satisfaction that some people get when they claim to be an aesthesic — they see themself as ballsy or something. Once they get over that, they become a bit more open-minded.
I was quotiing CatP above! I didn’t copy and paste correctly!
I can very much understand this. I am not religious in any sort of way, but I HATE atheists. Agnostic people are OK and probably the only thing that it is really reasonable to be. They admit that, hey, there is no proof that there is or isn’t a deity. Not having belief is fine, even admirable. What makes me hate atheists is the ACTIVE BELIEF that God does not exist. If you are going to put belief into the equation, at least don’t use it to believe something so depressing that the entire universe is pointless. Religious people may try shove their beliefs down your throat, but at least their beliefs cheer you up. There is nothing more disturbing than the thought that you are going to cease to exist. I’d much rather burn in hell for eons than that.
Who said that being atheist means believing the universe is pointless??? I dont know about depression and atheism, but I do know how religion can be the cure or the cause for emotional disturbances… Religious people shoving their beliefs down my throat or judging me for what I think do not cheer me up…
“besides, the only thing that religious people have to fear from atheists is the occasional conversation where we use evidence, logic and reason in an attempt to make you question your faith”
Yeah, that about narrows it down. Any time I’ve had a conversation turn nasty when it comes to religion, its always been because of the person’s lack of will to accept evidence. Its always countered with “religion is faith, not evidence”. Well, so was the toothfairy when I was young, but least she used to leave money under my pillow which made her alot more tangible. All god has to offer is having his panties in a bunch and casting me to eternal damnation for not following his “word” that just so happened to be written down by a bunch of unknown men, who knows how long ago. Toothfairycism sounds way cooler.
I’m a Christian and I’d love to have an occasional conversation where we use evidence, logic and reason in an attempt to make you question your faith/lack of faith. But I’m worried you might think I’m trying to shove religion down your throat.
Why was I modded down? Should I not want to have that occasional conversation?
I would just like to point out 2 things. Firstly no-one want’s to be considered a bigot and even in a situation where privacy is guaranteed people are going to self censor to that effect. Unlike the other groups athiesm is pretty universally considered to be a personal choice (Muslim usually translates to arab in most people’s minds, and conservative or not 70% of the US is christian, as far as jews go I’d like to not resort to Godwin’s Law). Saying you wouldn’t vote for an athiest or whatever is like saying you wouldn’t vote for a liberal.
Secondly when determining the “Most Hated Minority” you need to consider the intensity as well as the scale of that hatred. In 2007 there were a wopping 6 hate crimes against Athiest, the lowest of any group mentioned. That’s only .0006% of the total hate crimes commited for the year. Of those 6 crimes only one was violent in nature. Compare that with 3275 crimes against blacks 969 of which were violent and its a pretty insignificant number.
Thirdly
I’m not saying its okay to be anti athiest or anything I’m just trying to point out that this article is misrepresenting the level of discrimination athiest face
Perhaps the reason is in the mirror. Every hateful, racist thing that has been said about me has been said by an atheist.
So any nonbeliever in your invisible imaginary friend is automatically a hater? A recent study of brain scans showed no difference between religious talking to their gawd and those talking to their imaginary friend.
It’s already been said probably but I’m an athiest and I think we do have a problem with looking down on people who are thiest.
Why is that?
Well I think we tend to lump thiest people into the following categories:
1. Crazy.
2. Ignorant followers who believe because thats what they were told to do.
3. Athiests who are not rocking the boat. (Hiding their actual beliefs and following friends and family.)
So I can see why people generally don’t like athiests if we are always looking down on people because of their beliefs.
Read the comments by atheists on this article. The reason you’re hated is because your vile, hatred-spewing douchebags on internet forums of any type. Every troll I’ve ever met has been an atheist.
If you learned how to, you know, act with the manners of at least a 3rd-grade child then people wouldn’t hate you. Grow up, and quit using the keyboard to compensate.
And you’re not a “vile, hatred-spewing douchebag on internet forums” right?
I wonder what the ratio of “hatred” by atheists towards the religions vs the religious towards the atheists is. Now thats a study I’d like to see. It just seems (from my limited point of view) that its easier for the religious to assume things and jump towards hatred than it is for atheists to be understanding of the fact that people will create their own reality, regardless of logic or reason.
I still vote for toothfairycism, she doesnt condone hatred, just cavities.
The reason atheists are despised is not because we don’t believe, but because we ridicule religion. And why shouldn’t we? It’s ridiculous.
The central tenet of the dominant faith in this country is that the animating principle of the universe had such an affection for this remote dust mote of a planet (and while we ought to take care of it — it’s the only home we have — curb appeal? not so much) that it took human form, and that whosoever believeth this load of malarkey will not die! Everlasting life! As if.
The belief that there is a father figure superhero action figure that lives in the sky, is the creator of everything that is, is all-powerful, yet permits millions of his “children” to suffer unspeakable misery at the hands of their fellows over a dispute about which of them has the least wrong version of his narrative, yet who will consign his children to eternal torment over who they sleep with is simply absurd. That’s not a god, that’s a psychopath.
Belief in that for which there cannot, by definition, be any dispositive evidence, is a pathology. I like to think of it as Acquired Cultural Delusional Disorder. It presents across a spectrum of severity from superficial (even arguably beneficial) to extremely dangerous to self and others. I look forward to the day that the Diagnostic Statistical Manual defines this malady complete with protocols for diagnosis, intervention, and treatment.
I don’t really have a quarrel with the individual who finds solace and serenity in solemn contemplation of scripture, but when the Senator from the Great State of Bible Belt tries to justify legislation with scripture, I want him gaveled into silence and forcibly removed from the chamber by the sergeant-at-arms. Keep your irrational belief system out of my government and schools, and we’ll get along just fine.
–Ax
Christians seem to unduly suffer from dualism [Catholic bipolar doctrine syndrome] in contrast to duality [shades of gray, creating synthesis]. There exists a disconnect between emotion and thought, often brought on by extreme childhood trauma. They’re often diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder.
I find religion itself ridiculous, but I do not ever like when religious people are denied the right to practice. It saddens me to hear about a Muslim women forced to remove her headscarf.
I have so many friends and a few family members who are theists, most of them Christian, and they have never caused me much trouble. It certainly depends on what part of the world. In the United States, obviously, some states are more conservative than others; I guess I have been lucky.
It is surprising to learn that atheists are the most hated group in the United States. My own observations tell me that atheists and religious people who do not practice do not seem to act very different.
I will say this as a personal belief/observation. Atheists – not being constrained by faith – tend to judge people more on actions than beliefs. As we can see from this survey, religious people seem to be averse to those who have differing beliefs, regardless of someones ethical strength.
Many Christians kill for their beliefs, even now. This is considered by those particular individuals to be ok, because their faith outweighs any specific action. An atheist with humanitarian values as an ethical foundation would have a very hard time justifying murder.
I say, actions speak louder than words, even the Word of God.
This was my favorite comment.
As a Christian, I agree with most of what you said. Actions do speak louder than words. Reminds me of a Bible verse.
Particularly Turkey? Turkey is the one of the few secular states with a Muslim majority and one of the most tolerant Muslim country in the world. You should check your facts.
In the law, yes. Culturally, not so much. But I may be wrong, I’ve never been to Turkey.
I was waiting for someone to mention this!!! you’re exactly right cagri. under the law AND in reality secular beliefs are very much respected in turkey– certainly a lot more than in the other islamic states that border turkey.. and i HAVE actually been there, lived and studied there. the author really needs to check his facts. ridiculous.
Personally, I find it really hard to believe. All the pro-atheist (for lack of a better word) comments are modded up, and all the anti-atheist comments modded down.
“The reason atheists are despised is not because we don’t believe, but because we ridicule religion. And why shouldn’t we? It’s ridiculous.”
So who’s despising who?
I think I’m going to look at the study results more carefully, but my guess is that since there are more religious people in the US than atheists, than of course more people despise atheists than the other way round.
What would be really interesting is what percentage of religious people despise atheists, and vice versa.
I am Athiest. I am very moral. I am much less selfish than many people I know who are extremely religious. I am open minded and I am an asset to my community. Basically, I am not a bad person. I do not believe that all religious people should be killed but I believe that insitutionalized religion should cease to exist. Many people make the argument that religion is the reason for all wars and conflicts in the past and present. A counterargument I have heard a numerous amount of time is that if people didn’t fight because of religion they will fight because of other reasons. I supported the counterargument for a long time but I’ve read many statistics about how more Athiest populated countries are more peaceful. For example Sweden has not been involved in any kind of war in over 200 years and most of Sweden’s inhabitants are Athiest. The ones who are not keep their religious beliefs to themselves. Throughout my life religion has only made things worse for me. I really wish from the bottom of my heart that religion ceases to be institutionalized by the time I die.
Morality is strictly a system employed to deem judgment, particularly against strangers. You can use morality as a Christian to burn a heretic alive at the stake. Morality is usually imposed upon strangers, and not the inner circle. Hence morality is fertile soil for hypocrisy.
Ethics, in contrast, are the application of values to behavior. Ethics can be equitable and are less conducive to “old boy networks.”
I’m a Christian, and after reading this article and the comments, I’m wondering how my attitude should change towards atheists.
I’ve never hated an atheist in my life. I’ve hated siblings, classmates, parents and friends for periods of time, but they were all religious. Most of the people I know are religious, so that could explain it. If I were to hate an atheist, I think it would be for other reasons than their atheism.
I’m not American, but I think the religion of a politician would influence my vote. I have been fooled by politicians so many times that I’ve lost faith in any politician’s promises. I would be tempted to vote for an atheist so that Christians would stop getting all the bad press! But in the end, issues like foreign policy (peace not war) would be the main factor.
As for my child marrying an atheist, I would disapprove, assuming my child is a Christian of course. I believe Christians should only marry Christians. So I’m not singling out atheists. Does that come across as hateful?
The fact is, what I believe influences the way I see atheists. I see them as lost people. IMO, some of them have deliberately set their hearts against God and the idea of God, and some of them simply can’t find an honest intellectual reason to accept God, and some of them both. As a Christian, I am called to love my neighbour, and it seems to me that trying to convince the second category of the existence of a loving God is the right thing to do. Does that come across as hateful?
I have doubted everything about Christianity at some time or other. Sometimes, I’m absolutely convinced of it intellectually and emotionally. Other times, I wonder why God doesn’t make things explicitly obvious, and if He really is a myth. My feelings come and go, but I still reason that they’re must be an ultimate cause. That ultimate cause must be God, because otherwise my person-hood, morality and hope would be meaningless. That’s not to say that they aren’t much more convincing arguments for God, it’s just that theology is like science: it’s constantly being updated, and sometimes I get tired of sifting through information and learning about the changes in theories. Does that come across as arrogant, ignorant or bigoted?
I wish I could meet you. If what I believe is true, God can, and my prayer will bring change to your lives. I don’t understand why prayer works, when God is omniscient and omnipotent. But I’m going to pray anyway, God’s not just an idea, He’s a person. Does that come across as stupid?
Jadd, as an atheist myself, I find what you’ve said to be kind and honest. Thanks for representing the good Christians out there.
I am curious though, why would you disapprove of your child marrying an atheist? Assuming, of course, they were in love, and the mate was a good, caring, trust-worthy person. Might it be that you’d be concerned for the beliefs and salvation of their children? Or is there something else?
I do have do disagree with one point you make: “That ultimate cause must be God, because otherwise my person-hood, morality and hope would be meaningless.”
I don’t buy that. Morality, person-hood and hope are what bring us together as people– they are meaningful in of themselves. Consider that a biblical story can provide profound meaning in your life, whether you take it as an absolute truth, a moving parable, or something in-between. An athiest can be deeply affected by reading the bible, just as a Christian can be affected by reading Shakespeare– neither believes what they’re reading is literal truth, but both gain some understanding of what it means to be human.
For me, I see the world around me and find meaning in my existence without having to explain anything about what might have caused or preceded the big bang. (Besides, as you point out, both theology and science change. You probably don’t want to rely on some particular belief in order to be a moral person!)
Finally, “theology is like science: it’s constantly being updated, and sometimes I get tired of sifting through information and learning about the changes in theories. Does that come across as arrogant, ignorant or bigoted?” No it doesn’t, but remember to recognize what you *don’t* understand and not claim certainty! It’s ok to not have an answer for every question.
Actually, your biblical gawd is called a tetragrammaton. It’s not a person. It’s a geometric figure which represents the I-Ching, tarot, the four alchemical elements, and the signs of the zodiac.
It’s not a being. It’s more of a spaceship for your thoughts.
I have a feeling that no posting on this subject is going to be without significant bias. From looking at the study posted, it looks like there is very little correlation after you cross a minimal threshold which indicates to me that perhaps the relationship is to social tolerance more than religion.
Personally, I know that my distaste for atheists stems from three issues. First, frequently I have had atheists pretend to be so much more enlightened because they “know there is no God.” I have heard them portray the religious as universally ignorant individuals who disbelieve science, particularly evolution. Personally I am a Christian who sees no conflict with evolution. Also, I fail to see how believing that the universe is some sort of cosmic accident with no cause is more “enlightened” than believing it was created by an intelligent designer. Atheists often challenge theists to explain God’s existence, but I challenge atheist to explain why there is a universe at all, why anything exists instead of nothing. The Big Bang is not a sufficient explanation, something must have caused it to happen. Even if we discover the a scientific cause of the Big Bang, that too must have a cause of its own.
Second, the conclusions that even relatively intelligent atheists can draw about morality and our purpose in life scare me. If there is no judgment after this life and no special value attached to a person with a soul, it would be easy for an individual to decide that greed, even at the expense of other people’s lives, is justified. Look at Stalin or Mao and how they had no qualm with ruthlessly murdering huge numbers of people who opposed their policies.
Finally, I have never understood why certain atheists feel the need to antagonize the religious. If you are an atheist, why do you care what other people believe? Particularly with regards to the lawsuits over Christmas displays or similar issues, who cares? So you do not believe in Jesus or God, does a Christmas tree or manger scene really hurt you? If people want to celebrate Mickey Mouse week I might think it’s silly, but I’m not going to sue them. I believe those displays of venom make atheist look more like bitter social outcasts than enlightened individuals.
Faith is a tricky thing. People can accept a lot of things if they believe it to make there lives easier. Be it a practical understanding of the Universe, or the comfort of a god, people will grasp what makes them comfortable.
There are three reasons why atheists are without credibility and are despised:
1. Despite claiming to value logic and factual evidence every single atheist argument either for atheism and against religion is grounded on a factual and/or a logical error.
2. Atheists are negative and hateful.
3. Atheists are, by definition, incapable of moral behaviour or thought: morality demands an absolute template against which to measure one’s thoughts, words and deeds. Atheist deny such an Absolute and thereby confine themselves to a narrow self-absorbed utilitarian way of engaging the world.
There is not great wonder that the population at large do not trust people like atheists who are negative, hateful, illogical, incapable of self-examination and whose every effort is selfish.
“3. Atheists are, by definition, incapable of moral behaviour or thought: morality demands an absolute template against which to measure one’s thoughts, words and deeds. Atheist deny such an Absolute and thereby confine themselves to a narrow self-absorbed utilitarian way of engaging the world”
– oh my.
we all understand computers – more processing power means more speed and the ability to run more applications at once; i.e. – a smarter brain
atheists are almost always those people of high intelligence – they have more processing power in their little brain computers and can handle the complex and varied inputs of data and collate it and make sense of it and hence come to the conclusion that religion is bunk and most are nice enough to the rest of the slower computers (lesser intelligent people) who need the crutch of religion and superstition to make sense of a complex world that they don’t condescend to them unless those religious types start trying to impose their views upon the rest of us – then it’s throw-down time and we atheists have to remind the religious types of their lesser intelligence
Wow… what a not-so-clever analogy. I’ll bet you think you’re one of those “smarter people,” don’t you? Guess what, you’re not. Let’s examine your central claim: “Atheists are almost always those people of high intelligence.” Disregarding the errors in sentence structure (omit “those”) , I would like to see facts to support that atheists are not only of above average intelligence, but of the highest intelligence. Realistically, it is irrelevant whether atheists are of higher intelligence than the average… they can all still be wrong. Your comparison is similar to saying that, on average, spider monkeys are smarter than gerbils, so their opinion on the answer to a calculus problem must be right. When the problem is complex enough solve it, any relatively minor variation in intelligence (even supposing 10%, for which you provided no supporting evidence) is meaningless noise since neither group is able to fully comprehend or solve the problem. That being said, one of modern society’s most widely recognized geniuses, Albert Einstein, was more agnostic than atheist. He certainly did not believe in the idea of a personal God the way many Christian denominations do, but he did believe in a more impersonal divine revelation through the order of the Universe, as suggested by Spinoza. In short, claiming that atheism is correct because its supporters have a higher than average IQ only reveals your own lack thereof. There are at least as many highly intelligent, well-educated believers (whatever their particular faith may be) as there are scholarly atheists. I realize I provided no statistics to support this, but if you’re not, I’m not taking the time to either.
There’s no edit button, so I will go ahead an correct my own editing error. The sentence should read “When the problem is complex enough, any relatively minor variation in intelligence…”
All animals believe, as that’s how basic neural networks operate. Man is capable of more. Should he refuse, then what right does he have to be treated differently than a caged beast? You only need “faith” to believe the untrue or unprovable.
The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun. -Thomas Paine
“Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself.” – unknown
Interesting study. I enjoy a good debate every now and then. I, for one, am completely not surprised that Athiests are the “most hated and distrusted minority”. It’s like saying “Anarchists are the most marginalized political group in the United States”.
Wow! Real shocker this one is! You mean the group that recognized themselves as “Athiest” that made up 1% of the US is distrusted and hated?
For comparison sake, Anarchists believe in no government…Athiests believe in no God. Both are associated by most people with chaos and disarray (whether that is the case or not, who knows…I assume that both would describe themselves with a “live and let live” mentality). Either way they make up a huge minority which means most people probably don’t even understand what exactly either group stands for anyway. Thus, fear and distrust.
Enough egotistical internet battles. This study means nothing.
Atheists are disliked by Religious people because of fear. Religious people do not like to think about the arbitrary nature of their faith. Taught to believe in a local version of God, they are generally not ready to question it, and don’t want to confront the personal and, for them, moral identity crisis that comes with it. It is not meant to sound haughty or arrogant, but the Atheists take far more abuse than they give. Their world is ever coming into focus, with new breakthroughs and discoveries adding to the picture, while the Religious view of the world is ever revised– perhaps it is God’s will, I mean the Creator’s will, I mean the Intelligent Designer’s will, that we have this debate.
To Judd: To be honest, I’m actually glad to see a christian who seems to be rational and accept atheists, not belittle them. With that said, the only thing you said that I have a problem with was “I see them as lost people”. I understand that you say this from your point of view, so I respect your opinion. But if I may express my response, I feel that statement shows how christians feel superior because they “KNOW” there is a god. To say atheists are “lost” implies that we need to be helped or saved, which we don’t.
To Alex: You are right, the big bang must have been caused by something, and whatever caused that must have been caused by something else. To say the big bang “just happened” doesn’t really make sense. But how do christians explain god? I mean by your logic, god must have come from somewhere and his “existence” must have been caused by something, but I’ve yet to see any explanation as to “why there’s a god”. The Bible just says that He has always existed: ” . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God”(Psalm 90:2). So how is the believe that god has “always” existed more reasonable then the believe that the universe was once fabricated. To criticize atheists for having no explanation for their beliefs just proves your hypocrisy. I will admit your comment that atheists would feel that being greedy and bad carries no punishment sounds plausible. Many atheists don’t commit these crimes, not because they fear god’s wrath but because they realize that these crimes are just morally wrong. Just look at our prison system. The majority of inmates follow some form of religious faith, many of whom put tattoos of symbols of their faith on their body, and proclaim that “god will help them get through prison”. People shouldn’t kill others, not because god said not to, but because the act of killing takes away life, the one gift that is truly meaningful. Also, you say you don’t understand why “certain” atheists feel the need to antagonize religious people, but are you saying you understand why “certain” religious people antagonize atheists and other religions? By that logic if a christian kills an atheist its ok, but is an atheist kills a christian it’s a horrible and evil act? You do realize that all religions antagonize one another right? You can’t say atheists are the only ones who antagonize other faiths. I don’t remember reading about the hundreds of years of “atheist crusades” or atheist armies slaughtering thousands of non-atheists, though that’s exactly what christians,muslims, jews and all other religions have done to each other. The reason atheists get mad about religion is because there are so many “radicals” who try to force their beliefs onto others by force. When was the last time you saw a group of atheists holding up signs listing people who should be killed for their beliefs? And how can you compare atheists to stalin? Just because I don’t believe in god, that means I support the murder of millions upon millions of innocent people? Being an atheist doesn’t mean your evil, and being religious doesn’t mean your good. It’s up to the individual to be a good person.
I never said that the lack of an explanation by atheists inherently makes belief in God superior, I merely stated that in my experience atheists have portrayed my believe in God as “silly,” when in fact it has an (at least) equally logical basis as any disbelief.
As to the prison thing, I cannot defend the actions or beliefs of every person who claims to believe in some variation of God(s). However, I do not believe there is a mass murderer on record who even comes close to Stalin or Mao (you could argue Hitler, but his beliefs are highly ambiguous). As you may have figured out by now, I’m not comparing atheists to Stalin and Mao. They were atheists, and I am claiming that their terrible ruthlessness was in part due to the fact that, as atheists, they did not see their opposition as individuals with souls, but merely as obstacles to be eliminated.
I do not see anything in my posting indicating that I condone “certain” religious people antagonizing others. Your particular examples of interfaith antagonizing are pretty out of date. I do not believe that most Christians today would even condone the rationale for the Crusades. Regardless, the imperfect acts of any particular religion do not in any way affect whether or not God exists, they are at best an argument for agnosticism. As to holiday displays, this falls in a rapidly growing category for me that I like to call “quit your whining you oversensitive baby.” Seriously, fighting over Christmas trees? It’s the ridiculously petty nature of such lawsuits that I object to. No 10 Commandments in court, fine by me, I can see how that would cause the appearance or intermingling of Church and State. The religious majority in the country has already given in to not praying in public schools, even if everyone present practices the same religion. Pick something that actually causes harm to fight about and maybe people won’t have such a hostile reaction.
I grew up in a country, where the despite the religious freedom, the only religion that that existed was the freedom FROM religion, not the practice of your faith. I never seen a more untrustworthy system than an atheist mind is up in government level. Since there is no God, there is no moral standard. You set up your own moral standard. Corrupt courts, corrupt police, corrupt politics. These are 100 % that these are characteristics of the Atheist systems. You can do everything just do not let them know what you are doing…. Sorry, but this is my experience, and it was not just one country, it was the WHOLE soviet block. Sad to see, that these characteristic are showing up more and more here, too…
So, when are you buying that one-way ticket to Tehran?
Funny all the hate when the only difference is atheists believe in one less god than you do.
The original article asks two stupid questions, “why the fear, why the hatred?”. Going back to the original poll statements:
1) This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…
2) I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….
I agree that fit in both of these categories according to my beliefs. There is no fear or hatred. I just think they are wrong and don’t represent what I want to see for America. And I would rather my children didn’t marry someone with beliefs that I find moronic. Disagreeing should not be a hate crime. I think atheists should have the right to to be wrong regarding their beliefs. But lets not confuse that for religious intolerance or potentially violent tendencies. The following would have been more interesting and revealing poll questions:
- Would you move if your neighbor was an atheist?
- Would you permit an atheist teach in a public school?
In my case, the answers would have been “no, I wouldn’t move” and “yes, I would let them teach most classes if qualified”. I think there is enough division in America without exaggerating poll results.
Explain please how a disbelief constitutes a “belief” as you put it. The only beliefs in sight are yours. Are those the beliefs that you “find moronic?”