Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
crazy monkey
Banned
it is the same way many atheist have understanding of religious people. Both are not true.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Oh boy does this mean I can invoke Godwin and post a picture of Hitler? He was a self proclaimed Christian you know.
Don't know his name, his site is atheistcartoons.com.He represents what's wrong with smug internet atheists(they tend to come off as assholes.)
Another of his "pearls":
You'll find of lot of his shit on this page:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3410801&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=390
I'm talking about conflating Stalinism and Atheism, what are you talking about?
The funny thing about this is that Hitler hated both Christianity and Atheism.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
People are conditioned to automatically, reflexively, emotionally, equate God with morality. Period. God is the beginning and the end of "what is right and wrong". Even people who are not stereotypical evangelicals, who aren't biblical literalists, who don't even believe their religion is the only true one... fall back on some vague notion of "god" being the source of what is right and wrong.
In a sense, it's natural. This is one of the reasons why the human notion of god was invented in the first place.
But the problem is that the same emotionally evocative and manipulative mental framework that says "god = goodness" will tell a person "no god = removal of goodness". Within its internal framework, this makes sense. It's not that people are being entirely irrational - it's that their intellectual framework is incomplete and has some concepts confabulated together.
Now, considering that polls can be easily manipulated to massage results, including just HOW you present questions, even what order you place the words in, I'm not so sure about people LITERALLY equating the trustworthiness of atheists with rapists. People who already have trouble conceptualizing "morality" without "god" may be easily mislead by the exact nature of the questions. Even unintentionally misled.
But I think it's generally true that religious people in cultures where religiosity is equated with morality, and god is equated with the very definition of good, will at best see an atheist as someone who is confused and very deluded, and not as sound of judgement as someone who believes in some kind of god.
In a sense, it's natural. This is one of the reasons why the human notion of god was invented in the first place.
But the problem is that the same emotionally evocative and manipulative mental framework that says "god = goodness" will tell a person "no god = removal of goodness". Within its internal framework, this makes sense. It's not that people are being entirely irrational - it's that their intellectual framework is incomplete and has some concepts confabulated together.
Now, considering that polls can be easily manipulated to massage results, including just HOW you present questions, even what order you place the words in, I'm not so sure about people LITERALLY equating the trustworthiness of atheists with rapists. People who already have trouble conceptualizing "morality" without "god" may be easily mislead by the exact nature of the questions. Even unintentionally misled.
But I think it's generally true that religious people in cultures where religiosity is equated with morality, and god is equated with the very definition of good, will at best see an atheist as someone who is confused and very deluded, and not as sound of judgement as someone who believes in some kind of god.
Wow, that's fucked up.Don't know his name, his site is atheistcartoons.com.
Another of his "pearls":
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Obviously everything Stalin did, he did because he was atheist.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Yeah, they were into black magic rituals based on crappy fantasy novels and researching tibet, but I don't now if Adolf's heart was into it like some of the other guys.
Well, Catholic priests have a pretty similar equivalency.
I see what you're saying, but to throw one last thing in (I don't know if this is getting off topic or not, which is why I want to stay away from the whole stalin/hitler were they atheists or whatever argument)
Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. (It's the first sentence under the religion section in his wiki)
I think you can argue either way really.
He sure didn't hate the Pope:
And if his quest for the Spear of Destiny is to be believed, it proves that Hitler at least believed in the divinity of Jesus.
Given the 'morality' displayed by God in the old and new testaments, and the ease with which he killed and punished people I find it hard to trust anyone who solely and blindly derives their morals from those books.
Not really, but it is undeniable proof that just because someone labels themselves as religious doesn't mean they have good morals.
Let's be honest. That's only because atheists would never be that united.
However, what the Vatican does in handling the scandal has no relation to the guilt of all other priests of child molesting.
That's like condemning all of Russia for the actions of Stalin.
Definitely true. In fact, most of the heinous acts of mankind were committed by people claiming to to be religious. Still doesn't condemn all religion though or even one very big one.
Dude please, I've done research papers on this. He made certain public comments (at least early in his career) supporting Christianity to an extent, but privately, he HATED Christianity.He sure didn't hate the Pope:
And if his quest for the Spear of Destiny is to be believed, it proves that Hitler at least believed in the divinity of Jesus.
Given the 'morality' displayed by God in the old and new testaments, and the ease with which he killed and punished people I find it hard to trust anyone who solely and blindly derives their morales from those books.
EDIT: I should say that Hitler, at times, showed that he believed Jesus was a prophet that fought against Judaism, but had his message corrupted by Paul and the other apostles, which created modern Christianity.
Hitler wasn't exactly known for being the kind of person who kept his hate private, but I'm sure he did hate Christianity as it diluted his power-base. On that other hand, that doesn't disprove his belief in God.
Why?
Angry Fork
Member
To say that the only thing holding back Atheists from covering up acts of genocide is lack of unity is crazy because:
1. There aren't people committing genocide in the name of atheism.
2. There is no book of ideas that could be interpreted in any way, whether to be a good person or commit genocide.
3. Communism is not Atheism.
You're assuming that Father Flanagan in Pundunk Parish #4 is covering up something. I challenge that notion.
Plus, we can't ignore the whole confidentiality thing anyway which confuses tons of people religious areas or not. Don't want to add fuel to the fire though on that one.
I blame the descent of this thread on the muppet who tried to equate Stalinism to Atheism. Now it's just Theism vs Atheism round 2.
Having said that, my Atheism just wavered a little!
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454979
Umm, none of those relate to my statement. Thanks for playing though.
I think the problem with equating the Christian God with morality is that the Christian God very often was involved with things that any rational person would consider immoral. Binding of Isaac, tormenting of Job, etc. Morality does not exist because some preternatural force guides our actions, it exists because human beings are capable of freely making choices, steps and thoughts in forming our actions. Moreover, morality exists because of evolutionary and psychosocial reasons, so perhaps using the reasoning that God exists, therefore morality exists is an inverse argument. Can we not say that modern human beings evolved to become moral creatures, to feel and understand pain, apart from other hominids, and created belief systems as a symbolic signifier of a more deeply rooted psychological behavior?
First post rule in full effect.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I find it funny that a lot of religious people forgot the genocide in the past and how priests did some raping in their time too.
Especially in my country's history, lol
Especially in my country's history, lol
Don't forget to post Mao and Hitler as well for the trifecta of lies and ignorance!
state-of-the-art
Member
Psh, it'll collapse in two weeks because it wouldn't be founded on Christian principles. Do you doubt the wisdom of Rick Perry?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Religion is a big red herring when it comes to morality. It's a complete mistake to equate the two.
I know the kindest, sweetest atheists... who would do the right thing even if no one was looking.
And I know asshole religious people.
The immoral "fantasy atheist" in the mind of a religious person has ALWAYS been 100% imagined... it has NEVER been based on experience with atheists. Nice atheists don't advertise that they are atheists, so the religious never get to equate atheism with the good people they have a around them day to day.
I know the kindest, sweetest atheists... who would do the right thing even if no one was looking.
And I know asshole religious people.
The immoral "fantasy atheist" in the mind of a religious person has ALWAYS been 100% imagined... it has NEVER been based on experience with atheists. Nice atheists don't advertise that they are atheists, so the religious never get to equate atheism with the good people they have a around them day to day.
Change all that to "mutants" and you're now in the X-Men universe!
I'm not averse to having that discussion: The answer is that humans are naturally good at forming factions and excluding others. In this case, some religious people have been taught that atheists are immoral and evil, and thus do not trust them.
Except we have no X-Men.
I'm not averse to having that discussion: The answer is that humans are naturally good at forming factions and excluding others. In this case, some religious people have been taught that atheists are immoral and evil, and thus do not trust them.
Except we have no X-Men.
Your response doesn't have to do with the proposed problem. Humans are social and communal, and from that they need to trust each other. If faith is important to trust for the human species then how do atheists work within that?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I fail to see how we need faith to trust each other.
I don't need to believe the same things as another person to trust them.
I don't need to think they are running some sort of "I'll be good because I believe in God" game in order to actually be good.
state-of-the-art
Member
At least they had superhuman abilities to offset the discrimination, so it's not really fair if you ask me.
Edit: Your move rapists.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/09/atheists-donations-idINDEE7B80HT20111209
You're confusing different meanings of 'faith' here.
- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
- belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. <- And religious faith is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, without a justification/precedence. A bit more specific than this.
I don't see how it's a question even. One is having faith in a random truthclaim without having anything to support it, the other is having faith/trust that a person will behave according to expectations within tolerance, which can be supported by empirical evidence, statistics etc.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
The questions they ask are so stupid I don't know if I can even draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Would it be a teacher, a rapist teacher, or an atheist teacher? Really? That's your scientific question. So stupid.
- Status