Believers deem atheists as untrustworthy as rapists

[Czarcasm]

@ITR_champion

I think the first question is too vague to answer with a yes or a no. I do not have a fundamental distrust of atheists. I generally trust my father and most of my relatives on his side of the family. I trusted the other math teacher at my school, before he left. I trust SDMB posters like Revenant Threshhold and voyager. When I know an individual I judge their trustworthiness based on what they say and do and what can reasonably be inferred from that.

As a group, however, I would list atheists as one of the groups from whom I’d be much less likely to choose a President of the United States or any other person who will have some sort of authority over me. This is not an indication of hatred or prejudice. I can choose to not want a member of a group as President without hating that group. I’m sure that groups such as circus clowns, football players, those with only a high school education, and nudists all contain many wonderful people, but I would not want any of them to be the President.

The reasons why I’d be less likely to put an atheist in a position of authority are as follows. (1) I can look at history and see that when atheistic movements have come to power, the results have usually been very bad for Christians and other religious believers. (2) In my experience atheists, particularly the influential ones, are more likely to hold unreasonable political positions such as animal rights extremism. (3) On the internet I see a large proportion of atheists demanding that my rights be taken away, calling me stupid or crazy or irrational or any other insult that comes into their mind, and otherwise indicating that they view themselves as superior and religious believers as inferior. (4) I find the Christian view of morality to be much more defensible than any atheist view I’ve ever seen. (5) Many atheists have tried to use a misinterpretation of a phrase in the Constitution to shut down the free speech rights of government employees and others, which I strongly disagree with.

(On point 4, I do find it curious that some atheists in this thread have said that religious believers need to “compartmentalize” in order to function in a normal, healthy way. To me it’s plain that it’s atheists who need to do that. If you look at someone who starts a thread like this, obviously such a person cannot live his day-to-day life in agreement with that philosophy, so he must be compartmentalizing.)

Admit it-you posted this to make Der Trihs look good, didn’t you?

[SenorBeef]

@ITR_champion

(4) I find the Christian view of morality to be much more defensible than any atheist view I’ve ever seen.

“Follow these exact rules, even the kooky ones that do no one any good, or I WILL GIVE YOU INFINITE PUNISHMENT!!!” is a more defensible system of morality than “I will act like a good person because I can do my small part to make the world a better place”?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@BrainGlutton

A militant atheist is one who tries to preach you out of your faith. Most atheists don’t bother.

Really…wouldn’t that make a large amount of theists militant as well?

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@ITR_champion

(On point 4, I do find it curious that some atheists in this thread have said that religious believers need to “compartmentalize” in order to function in a normal, healthy way. To me it’s plain that it’s atheists who need to do that. If you look at someone who starts a thread like this, obviously such a person cannot live his day-to-day life in agreement with that philosophy, so he must be compartmentalizing.)

Atheism, not being a set of beliefs, is very diverse. I cringe every time RR posts about morality, the way you probably do whenever a WBC funeral protest gets on the news again. Please don’t judge us all by Rand Rover’s extreme moral positions. I’d wager everyone posting in this thread would vehemently disagree with him.

[Great_Antibob]

@Novelty_Bobble

Really…wouldn’t that make a large amount of theists militant as well?

Christians and Muslims, certainly. But I don’t really see that many Hindus, Jews, or Buddhists trying to change people’s minds.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Great_Antibob

Christians and Muslims, certainly. But I don’t really see that many Hindus, Jews, or Buddhists trying to change people’s minds.

OK, just a couple of billion then…phew!

[Chessic_Sense]

I’d like to point out to a few page-1 posters that atheists were rated more trustworthy than rapists. Rapists were the one group to score lower than atheists. That is, atheists came in second-place on the untrustworthy scale.

[Eve]

@Chessic_Sense

I’d like to point out to a few page-1 posters that atheists were rated more trustworthy than rapists. Rapists were the one group to score lower than atheists. That is, atheists came in second-place on the untrustworthy scale.

Well, now, you can always rely on a rapist to rape you, right? So they *are *trustworthy, in a way.

[Czarcasm]

@Chessic_Sense

I’d like to point out to a few page-1 posters that atheists were rated more trustworthy than rapists. Rapists were the one group to score lower than atheists. That is, atheists came in second-place on the untrustworthy scale.

And where did atheist-rapists place?

[SenorBeef]

Not necesarily. What if they don’t rape you? Then you have to worry about what’s wrong with you and go into a spiral of self hatred. Heartbreakers, those rapists.

[Eve]

@Czarcasm

And where did atheist-rapists place?

Wait–you mean rapists who *are *atheists, or those who only *rape *atheists?

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Novelty_Bobble

Let’s stop you right there. What is a “militant atheist”? what defines them?

What is a non-militant atheist? what defines them? and would you be perfectly happy to vote for them instead?

A militant atheist is someone like Madelyn Murray. A non militant atheist is someone who respects and perhaps studies the various religions, and who respects people of faith. Because a non-militant atheist is unlikely to draw attention to his or her lack of religious faith, it is more difficult for me to give an example.

I would vote for a non militant atheist if I agreed with the person on political issues that are important to me, and if the non militant atheist convinced me that he or she would not add bricks to the wall of separation between church and state. On state occasions where it is important the non militant atheist would need to be willing to attend religious services.

[Czarcasm]

@New_Deal_Democrat

A militant atheist is someone like Madelyn Murray. A non militant atheist is someone who respects and perhaps studies the various religions, and who respects people of faith. Because a non-militant atheist is unlikely to draw attention to his or her lack of religious faith, it is more difficult for me to give an example.

I would vote for a non militant atheist if I agreed with the person on political issues that are important to me, and if the non militant atheist convinced me that he or she would not add bricks to the wall of separation between church and state. On state occasions where it is important the non militant atheist would need to be willing to attend religious services.

So-you would be willing to vote for a “good” atheist that kept quiet and knew his place.
No thank you, massah.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Czarcasm

And where did atheist-rapists place?

A distinction without a difference! I’ve already decided to move beyond just t-shirts. I want to start a bad-ass gang. Maybe something like “There is no such thing as hell’s angels” although that won’t fit that well on the back of a leather jacket.

Still, chicks dig rough customers. Imagine all the chicks who will be drawn to the rape-you-where-you-stand atheist gang!

[mnemosyne]

@New_Deal_Democrat

On state occasions where it is important the non militant atheist would need to be willing to attend religious services.

What? That’s not fair.

As a non-militant atheist*, that bothers me greatly. Why would I (theoretically) have to attend a service for something I don’t believe in? Why is it OK for you to tell me what to do, but you don’t want me to tell you what to do? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

*though I am a devout follower of the Religion of the Montreal Canadiens

[ITR_champion]

@constanze

So you are ignorant of any history before the 20th century? Never heard of how bad the medieval Christian states were for people of other faith or sects? Or how strict the laws and harsh the punishment in the early Christian American colonies were?

I fail to see any relationship between this and anything that I posted, so I’m not sure why you posted it.

Have you looked at the positions that the prominent Christian Republican candiates are holding - creationism vs. evolution, denial of AGW, etc.? You don’t consider those shrill voices to be unreasonable positions?

See above.

You never see large groups of Christian evangelicals and fundies on the Internet or in real life actually taking people’s rights away: the right of gays to marry, the right of children to learn science and facts; a church denying a mixed racial couple membership just right now?

See above.

The OT morality that many fundies espouse, or NT? Have you looked at the morality that is proclaimed by actual Evangelicals groups? Like the new hate-filled immigrant law in the Sooner state - very unchristian, but supported by Conservative Christians. Laws and actions that support young women in their health care because they also provide counseling on family planning. Lying about people to get support (like lying about gays being child molesters, or lying about facts). Read some of the articles there about Evangelicals and consider whether those laws are very christian, and if it would be beneficial to enact them for the whole country.

See above.

[mnemosyne]

@mnemosyne

What? That’s not fair.

As a non-militant atheist*, that bothers me greatly. Why would I (theoretically) have to attend a service for something I don’t believe in? Why is it OK for you to tell me what to do, but you don’t want me to tell you what to do? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

*though I am a devout follower of the Religion of the Montreal Canadiens

And to add to this, you would rather insist that someone who doesn’t believe as you do fake participation/attendance to a religious event instead of being honest about their beliefs. You would prefer a lie or a façade to the truth?

Weird.

I’ve attended some religious events out of interest, love for family, whatever, but I balk at the suggestion that (were I to be in an important role) I’d have to go in order to appease religious people.

[ITR_champion]

@mnemosyne

But this is a prejudice… what is it about an atheist that makes them “bad” politicians? For that matter, what is it about the rest of your examples - other than perhaps the lack of high school education - that makes them bad candidates?

Perhaps it’s a prejudice; if so I don’t mind. I’ve never claimed that I have no prejudices. If a certain group of people contains a large subgroup which has some property that I find undesirable in an authority figure, then anyone from the larger group seeking my support in becoming an authority figure will have an uphill struggle. I know some people will regard this as unfair to members of the larger group who aren’t in the unwanted subgroup.

Atheism != communism.

I never said that atheism was not equal to communism, so I’m not sure what your point is.

In my experience, these aren’t a significant majority of atheists - though they may be a vocal majority - and don’t really qualify as “mainstream” and “not fundamentalist” which is the group of people I was interested in discussing. I’m willing to bet (though admit that I can’t prove) that there are more atheists than you think in political power right now that you actually respect; would you lose that respect for them based solely on this issue?

There’s hardly anybody in politics who I respect right now. (As for the constant claims from atheists that some politicians are atheists pretending to be theists, I can’t really discuss it until there’s some evidence. It seems like a strange thing to say, especially coming from people who claim that they only believe what the evidence supports.)

The internet isn’t everyday life, and the fact is that atheists are much more concerned with maintaining their own rights to not have your religion foisted upon them than they are about taking anything away from you. Believe what you want to believe, but leave us alone, basically. You are painting an entire group of people that you can’t even identify based upon the actions of a few who are acting in a context where they can say anything they like without consequence. That’s not really all that rational.

I base my opinions on the sum total of what I read. If what I read contains a very large portion of the material I described. If that portion comes only from “a few”, c’est la vie.

I don’t know what you mean by this. What’s indefensible about an atheist’s morality?!? Most of us don’t kill, don’t rape, don’t eat babies, don’t steal, don’t vandalize,

Well for starters, anyone who defines morality as not killing, raping, eating babies, stealing, or vandalizing is setting a very low bar for their personal morality. But as I already pointed linked to a thread entitled “Morality is BS”, I’ve provided an example of someone who’s morality is definitely not the same as Christian morality. Many others could be found with a quick search.

Though the fact that you’d even say this point indicates some level of truth to the study… there is something about atheism that leads to a lack of trust, since you consider us to be morally indefensible!

I did not say that I found you morally indefensible; I said that I found Christian morality to be more morally defensible than any atheist morality.

@Czarcasm

Admit it-you posted this to make Der Trihs look good, didn’t you?

I did not have in mind in any way when writing my first post in this thread.

@senorbeef

“Follow these exact rules, even the kooky ones that do no one any good, or I WILL GIVE YOU INFINITE PUNISHMENT!!!” is a more defensible system of morality than “I will act like a good person because I can do my small part to make the world a better place”?

I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to anything I posted.

@Der Trihs

He is a creationist.

I’m not sure why you posted this, since you’ve been corrected on this point many times in other threads. Do you enjoy posting the same untrue things and getting proven wrong over and over again?

[Voyager]

@New_Deal_Democrat

A militant atheist is someone like Madelyn Murray. A non militant atheist is someone who respects and perhaps studies the various religions, and who respects people of faith. Because a non-militant atheist is unlikely to draw attention to his or her lack of religious faith, it is more difficult for me to give an example.

I would vote for a non militant atheist if I agreed with the person on political issues that are important to me, and if the non militant atheist convinced me that he or she would not add bricks to the wall of separation between church and state. On state occasions where it is important the non militant atheist would need to be willing to attend religious services.

I see. A non-militant atheist is content to ride on the back of the bus, while a militant one objects.
Her militancy was in pointing out that the First Amendment’s ban on establishment meant that the government couldn’t force students to recite one set if prayers for one type of religion. And force they did, through social pressure. While perhaps in some places you were allowed to sit out the prayers, kids won’t. My wife was made to feel like a freak in one class because she didn’t go to church.
Sure she was obnoxious, comes with the territory perhaps, but she didn’t get prayer out of school. The courts did.

[Voyager]

@ITR_champion

I did not say that I found you morally indefensible; I said that I found Christian morality to be more morally defensible than any atheist morality.

Being Jewish, my great grandparents got a dose of Christian morality at the hands of the Cossacks. Many others got a dose in Spain. In any case, please define Christian morality. It seems to be used to support the actions of both the Ku Klux Klan and Martin Luther King.
If you can defend it by secular ethical reasoning, it isn’t really Christian morality any more. If you can only defend it by appeal to a god, you need to demonstrate that the God exists, and that your interpretation is correct. You might invite God to show up and let us know. But he doesn’t seem to be answering his phone, is he?

At this point in your posting career you should be well aware that there is no such thing as atheist morality. The only thing atheists have in common with regard to our personal morality is that God does not dictate or influence it. That doesn’t limit stuff very much, does it?