Americans Intuitively Judge Atheists as Immoral

[rug]

New research finds a link between disbelief and unethical behavior is strongly lodged in Americans’ minds.

By Tom Jacobs • April 15, 2014 • 4:00 AM

Atheists have been speaking up more loudly in recent years, adding a fresh perspective to debates over meaning and morality. But in spite of this new visibility, the way Americans view non-believers remains extremely negative, according to a newly published study.

After reading a description of someone committing an immoral act, participants in five experiments “readily and intuitively assumed that the person was an atheist,” University of Kentucky psychologist Will Gervais reports in the online journal PLoS One. “Even atheist participants judged immoral acts as more representative of atheists than of other groups.”

The findings suggest our instinctive belief that moral behavior is dependent upon God—as ethical arbiter and/or assigner of divine punishment—creates a belief system strong enough to override evidence to the contrary. It leads people many to look at non-believers and reflexively assume the worst.

Gervais describes five experiments with a total of 1,152 participants, all recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. (He notes that users of that service have previously been found to be “less religious, on average, than Americans in general,” making his findings all the more striking.)

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/americans-intuitively-judge-atheists-immoral-79095/

Full study here:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0092302

[JNelson6563]

1. So conditioning works, who could've guessed that?

At least America still does that well & increasingly so, I daresay!

Congratulations religionists! Looks like the narrow-minded judgementalism will continue to thrive for generations to come!

Julie

[rug]

2. It must be some conditioning.

When Gervais looked at the responses of hard-core atheists—that is, those “who both self-identified as atheists and who rated their belief in God at 0?—he found even they “viewed immorality as significantly more representative of atheists than other people.”

[randys1]

4. what?

I am not sure what you are saying, do you have a link to what Ricky said?

[rug]

5. No but here's one to University of Kentucky psychologist Will Gervais.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0092302

[sinkingfeeling]

6. That's in the small percentage of atheists represented in the experiments of the

study.

I personally think that when people are given an 'out' ( saying the words, "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior." for example) then they are more likely to 'sin' or commit immoral acts.

[rug]

10. According to the author, the percentage is higher than average.

Gervais describes five experiments with a total of 1,152 participants, all recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. (He notes that users of that service have previously been found to be “less religious, on average, than Americans in general,” making his findings all the more striking.)

[Maedhros]

20. "If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward,

then brother, that person is a piece of shit."

- Detective Rustin Cohle, True Detective, Season One Episode Three

[randys1]

3. Atheists in reality are far better people, FAR better

Than 99.99% of religious folks.

There are a few here and there that are great, but so few not worth mentioning.

You see an atheist doesnt steal or kill or cheat because it is WRONG to do those things, if a kreeeeestian doesnt do those things it is cuz they are skeared of that man in the sky who might smite them

morons

[hrmjustin]

8. Oh really!

[cbayer]

34. Saying that atheists are FAR better people than 99.99% of religious folks

is as judgmental and bigoted as those who participated in this study who made a correlation between atheism and lack of ethics. In fact, it may be even more judgmental and bigoted.

Then you double down by saying that there are so few good religious people that they aren't even worth mentioning and resorting to to using juvenile language like "kreeeeestian" and "skeared".

While I wouldn't go so far to call you a moron, your post is far more moronic than those you attack here.

[agbdf]

52. I agree with you.

[randys1]

84. religion is a disease, an illness

I said there are some good xtians, but not many, not many good any type of religious people

Not my opinion, just fact, look around, almost all problems are related to one religion or another including climate change, cuz you know we have dominion over the earth and we can ruin it cuz Jesus is coming back anyway

Spare me this outrage you have at me for pointing out the fact about religion

Spare me, someone who went to catholic school for 12 yrs, someone who bought into Pat robertson 30 yrs ago and for a few years thought he had some answer only to find out it is all complete nonsense

I wish i could get back the thousands of hours of bible study , what a total waste of time

Do I need to point out your intolerance for me?

There is the exact same amount of evidence for Leprechauns as there is for God, and I have to sit here and defend myself around a bunch of people who believe in something that does NOT exist...

stop this insanity, there is NO invisible man in the sky who can see everything you do...got it!

Let me add one more thing, I knew an actual xtian once, only met one in my life out of thousands of so called xtians, he was a monk, and if I had said to him what I said here, instead of attacking me he would have loved me and gently tried to show me why he thought i was wrong, each response I received here is from people who are ANYTHING but xtian...

[cbayer]

85. How would it sit with you if I said that atheism was a disease, an illness?

What if I said that there are some good atheists, but not many?

What exactly would you call that?

Are you actually saying that religion is responsible for climate change? While there are issues regarding some religious denials of climate change, it is hardly responsible. And there are a growing number of religious organizations taking a completely different approach and embracing the idea that humans are responsible for caring for this earth and need to be on the front lines of addressing climate change.

I will spare you nothing. Your POV on this and the way you express yourself is no better than a one-way fundamentalists.

Sorry that you were naive enough to buy into Pat Robertson and glad you found your way out of that, but that doesn't justify your ugly antagonism towards religion and religious people in general. The inability to see the diversity of believers is as dogmatic as Robertson positions on many issues.

I have not tolerance for bigotry, so point it out all you want.

No one has the right to tell you what you should and should not believe in, but in the same light, you have no right to tell others. Your position about what is true and what is false has no basis in fact and no standing.

When you broadly attack groups of people based on their religious beliefs, you should be prepared to encounter some pushback. That's not an attack on you. Got it?

[lostincalifornia]

87. The OP quoted an opinion that many Americans feel atheists are "immoral". I suspect that is what

triggered the comment you are addressing.

[cbayer]

91. My point is countering prejudice with prejudice is not a good idea,

and does nothing to correct the problem outlined in this article.

[lostincalifornia]

96. I know, and it is a valid point

[randys1]

89. Nonsense

How can not believing in Leprechauns or dragons or god be a disease?

Do you see the silliness of your argument?

I will broadly criticize religion and most religious people, not all, most. I will broadly criticize the monstrous harm done.

Climate change is denied PRECISELY because of ignoramuses going around saying it is in god's hands, and cut out the straw men, i didnt say religious morons cause it, I do say they work with oil companies to deny it thus making it worse, they work with them by buying into the lie.

Again, you prove that love and forgiveness and all that stuff you think Jesus stood for, are not top priorities for you, your faith is such that my NON faith observation gets you all upset.

Try being what you preach...


p.s. i have several friends on the internet who are Xtians or Jewish, i love them all, they tolerate my obnoxious but clearly correct view of their illness, we laugh about it seeing that I spent many year immersed in said nonsense...the ones who take offense the quickest and easiest, bless their hearts, are also the ones that dont walk the walk, dont really live the way Jesus would have them live.

And, when I made the mistake of thinking the Gervais referred to was Ricky, it was because he is famous for being what most Christians should be but are not.

When you take offense to my criticism of ALL religions the way you do, you are doing the last thing Jesus would do if so confronted.

Just sayin

[cbayer]

92. I'm going to hypothetically say it's a disease just because I think it is.

I don't have any evidence or data to back that up, I just feel like saying it.

That is exactly what you are doing, so why couldn't I do it?

Do you see the silliness of your argument?

By the way, you have no idea what my religious beliefs or lack of beliefs may be, but you have made broad and entirely false assumptions about me.

This is entirely consistent with your other remarks, however, where you make broad and entirely false assumptions about huge swaths of people.

Hilarious that you would call me unchristian because I challenge your grossly prejudiced statements and stand in defense of those you attack without merit. That is probably exactly what jesus would have done.

So glad that you have people in your life that tolerate your obnoxiousness and have a hearty laugh when you tell them they are mentally ill.

[randys1]

94. you refuse to drop the attack and do the xtian thing

it is why i win this argument and always will

you cant see it and why i dont know

[cbayer]

95. Where exactly to you see the attack?

I am challenging your grossly prejudicial statements about believers. Do you think the xtian thing to do would be allow people to voice prejudice or bigotry without challenge? If so, we just hold very different views of what that means.

But, hey, you win!

[randys1]

97. i was going to church and reading the bible probably before you were born

What I believe now is not prejudicial, it is fact based and observational and I am not alone...

[cbayer]

100. It's anecdotal, which is fine

and you are not alone in thinking that way.

But when you expand your personal experience to include all religious believers, you move into prejudice.

That is, of course, unless you have some actual data to back up your conclusions…. which you don't.

[randys1]

105. Not one of my posts anywhere on the internet says ALL

all religions, yes, all believers, no

not one

the leprechaun society, where people believe in leprechauns, not all of them are dangerous either

actually, NONE of them are...hmmmm

[cbayer]

106. Ah, but what about the Jewish Leprechaun Society?

And then there is the Leprechaun Gang.



Not dangerous? So you say.

[randys1]

107. oh my god, where have you been all my life LOL

[cbayer]

108. Lol. I am glad we can end this conversation with a chuckle.

It's been nice talking to you and I hope we meet again.

[Democracyinkind]

109. You are really great, cbayer.

[cbayer]

112. Thanks, boo.

So are you.

[marew]

38. Could not agree more! nt

[hrmjustin]

39. I like to judge people individually and not as a group.

[cbayer]

47. Because that is generally what progressive/liberal democrats do.

Those that don't, I'm not sure what to make of.

[gcomeau]

7. There's nothing intuitive about it.

It's a conditioned response. Hammered into people for centuries.

[rug]

11. I'll stick with the study over talking points.

[gcomeau]

15. The contents of the study say nothing to the contrary.

Not a single test they ran was designed to distinguish between plain intuition and the effects of cultural conditioning.

[rug]

18. Feel free to post a link then to study that examines your talking point.

[gcomeau]

28. Why? You already did. -eom

[rug]

29. I must have misread your post.

"Not a single test they ran was designed to distinguish between plain intuition and the effects of cultural conditioning."

[gcomeau]

30. Yeah...

...and the link to the data supporting that statement would be... yours.

[rug]

41. ...and the link to the data supporting that statement would be... nonexistent.

[gcomeau]

44. The study you linked doesn't exist? Well ok, if you say so... -eom

[rug]

45. "that statement", naturally, is yours.

[gcomeau]

46. Yep, got that.

Apparently however you missed the part where the contents of "that statement" were referencing the study you already linked.

[lob1]

80. This was posted a day or two ago. Atheists aren't all that bad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024785654

[hrmjustin]

9. I don't see atheists as immoral at all.

I know and I am related to many good atheists.

[rug]

13. Me either. It's about perceptions.

[randys1]

33. The study is what people THINK of atheists

Not what atheists actually are, right?

Like that study of how many people THOUGHT Obama was not respected by other world leaders, as opposed to the fact that he is highly respected by the vast majority of them.

[rug]

42. Your headline is correct.

Your Obama analogy is strange.

[cbayer]

48. What study is that?

[LostOne4Ever]

12. Thousands of years of institutionalized

prejudice is hard to erase.

[marew]

14. OMG!

How horrible we atheists/agnostics are!

Does it ever occur to these people that we are not motivated merely by an external source? We need no being outside of us to tell us of the necessity of kindness and compassion toward all beings. We do what we do not because we seek a heavenly reward or fear eternal punishment. We act simply because the qualities of altruism, kindness, and compassion are a part of who we are and exist independently at our very core. So sad that so many have to absorb these values only from an external source.

Many of us have never passed a person or animal in need without helping.

Yup! We're the bad guys all right!

[rug]

24. Atheism leads you to the conclusion of "the necessity of kindness and compassion toward all beings"?

It's simply nonbelief in god(s). If that is your conclusion, the premise is not in atheism per se.

[marew]

31. Not all. That is your personal perception and interpretation.

I can only speak for myself! I see, in so many cases, that there is no intervention by a 'divine being' when there is incredible suffering... Either a 'god' cannot or will not intervene when there is suffering. In my mind this is unacceptable and demonstrates callousness and/or indifference and/or powerlessness- any of which is not tolerable from a 'supreme being' that we have been taught is the center of all goodness.
Who among us, when we see a small child do something that could be dangerous to another as well as him or herself, does not intervene? Evidently "supreme beings" do not feel the same responsibilities to ease suffering as many of us.

[rug]

32. That is the common definition.

It is completely mute on "the necessity of kindness and compassion toward all beings". Or anything else for that matter beyond the absence of god(s).

[marew]

37. Again- your actualization and interpretation...

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Or god is considered useless or unnecessary. After that it is your opinion/definition which you appear to be so committed to! So go for it!
You are so committed to your singular definition of atheism- you'd have made a great evangelical!

[rug]

40. You've proven the point.

"god is considered useless or unnecessary. After that it is your opinion/definition which you appear to be so committed to!"

I won't remind you that is you who proceeded to claim "the necessity of kindness and compassion toward all beings" without stating the source of that necessity.

[marew]

65. I simply said that is part of the definition...

I will REPEAT that is what it is for me and me alone. You cannot comprehend that? Really? I see a need for kindness and compassion and that alone invalidates my entire belief system? Really? You are such an authority? Wow!
Again, your stringent, unrelenting adherence to your narrow belief system speaks volumes. I am not concerned about what you believe but you are intent in attacking me. My words obviously struck a chord in you. Instead of attacking me perhaps you need to examine your fervent need to attack others- does not speak well for your belief system. I'll bet you're a reincarnation of a torturer in the Spanish Inquisition!
Just tonight a neighbor called and I have wounds and bruises from rescuing a very large stray dog in traffic in danger of being hit by a car. My scrapes and bruises are a small price to pay. Fortunately, my neighbors- on both sides- are kind and compassionate and more interested in kindness than winning an ugly philosophical debate.
May you grow in tolerance, kindness, and compassion for all creatures.

[cprise]

79. Actually, that would be secular humanism

...which includes belief in an underlying moral instinct.

A lot of American atheists today are trying to promote humanism as 'atheism', though in my view it makes them look ignorant about the history of secular world views. (They often seem to know far more about the Bible.)

[rug]

88. Yes, they are two differen things.

[cbayer]

49. I think that theists and atheists for the most part have altruism, kindness

and compassion as part of who they are and exist independently at their very core.

There is nothing to justify the conclusion that people of faith don't have it and have to get it from an outside source, which seems to be what you are saying.
.
Certainly there are bad people. Some are believers, some are not

[LTX]

86. You say:

"We act simply because the qualities of altruism, kindness, and compassion are a part of who we are and exist independently at our very core."

Is that some kind of mystical "core"? Or are you suggesting that "altruism, kindness, and compassion" are genetic attributes? If the latter, then are those who eschew altruism for the more direct survival and reproductive advantages of self-interest (which is the demonstrably more frequent occurrence) genetically defective?

[cantbeserious]

16. So Then, Why Are Theists Caught Regularly In Immoral Acts?

eom

[rug]

17. There are more human beings who are theists.

Give it time to even out.

[marew]

21. Because they actually believe....

There's some big being in the sky and they can always 'repent' and thereby suffer no consequences from their immoral actions. Amazing how some repent ONLY after they're caught.

[rug]

23. Do you consider beating the drum for the Iraq War to be moral?

[marew]

35. I am not sure what you mean by "beating the drum."

I do not believe I have ever been in favor of war. I believe firmly in alleviating suffering- always have. You are asking me to make a determination for which there is not a singular answer. Minds much, much greater than mine have pondered these same questions over the ages.
You question is not such a clever philosophical trap. I do what I can do on my part and express my support, repeatedly, for non-harming any creature. I learned a very long time ago that I must let some of this go and concentrate on what kindness and compassion I can give to those beings who can receive it.

[rug]

43. There is no "kindness and compassion" in the Iraq War.

[marew]

58. I never said there was.

You have made assumptions about me based on your very stringent and narrow belief system.
"I do not believe I have ever been in favor of war." Did you not read what I wrote? Or are you so committed to supporting your own words regardless of the sentiments of others? To define everything in your world as black and white- you obviously find much comfort in that- it allows you to feel secure and confident. Remember that same sentiment in the annals of history have been disastrous for all forms of life. I claim no absolutes except the wish to lessen suffering of all sentient beings.
As someone much brighter than I could ever be- and I am paraphrasing here- no one wins a war, there are simply lesser degrees of defeat.
So cling to your absolutes which allow you to intimidate others Not a problem...

[rug]

59. Now that we have had our excursion, let's return to the question:

Do you consider beating the drum for the Iraq War to be moral?

[marew]

66. Read my previous response...

Or are your reading skills challenged? LOL!

[rug]

67. I read what you typed. Even got out a microscope. Nope, no response in there.

[Rob H.]

69. He's probably hoping for a "Gotcha!" moment

because Christopher Hitchens supported the Iraq War. I (and the few other atheists I know IRL) think he was absolutely wrong about that. Hitchens said later on that if even if he'd known we wouldn't find WMDs he still would've supported it, anyway, which is Richard Perle-/GW Bush-/Dick Cheney-grade crazy.

FTR, here in the Bible Belt, almost every church in town had "God Bless America" on their marquees on the eve of the Iraq War. The only one I saw that didn't was a United Church of Christ church, whose marquee simply said, "May God forgive us."

[marew]

76. Thank you, thank you for your kind words.

The "Gotcha!" game is popular among 'believers'! They must defend their perspective which is built on a house of cards.

Many, many years ago in a senior level social psychology class I was made aware that said many 'believers' are not fully committed to the standards of their belief system. Their focus was to convert someone- anyone- to believe as they did which in their minds- convinced them they were right.

Decades ago I learned of horrific, HORRIFIC, experiments done on dogs which I will never forget. I have seen pictures of what was done during the Holocaust which haunt my dreams and the many abominations we have seen since then. I have spent decades of my life attempting to stop suffering yet there are those who will always try the "Gotcha!" technique to discredit and dismiss people like me.

No apologies to those people ever, not ever!

[cbayer]

51. Because some people, whether they believe or not, act immorally.

The perceptions in the reported study are not based in reality, imo.

But neither is the perception being voiced here that atheists are actually more moral than believers.

Both conclusions are faulty and without merit.

[Leontius]

56. Perceptions are reality.

If there are no experiences to counter them perception is reality.

[cbayer]

62. If there are not experiences to counter them.

Therein may lie the problem.

As more people self identify, more people will have positive experiences which change their perceptions.

[Leontius]

64. At work for years they thought I was a godless commie now I'm just the commie.

[doc03]

19. I think I have better morals than about 90% of the Christians I know n/t

[marew]

22. Based on most Christians I know...

I am sure you are correct.

[cbayer]

50. Unless of course you consider judging whole groups of people

(well, 90% of them) something that may not be very moral at it's core.

[doc03]

90. Well about 90% of the ones I know have no problem with

judging others, so why can't I? I don't see where pointing out their hypocrisy makes me immoral, I am just telling it like it is. Does it make me immoral
if I point out a lot of priests molest children, it's just fact. Aren't you also judging me?

[cbayer]

93. So, 90% of the believers you know are judgmental and

you say that makes it ok for you to be, but you think you are somehow more moral than them?

That's some pretty twisted logic.

I'm not implying that you are immoral at all. I don't know you and could not even come close to making such a determination.

I am just challenging your statement that you are more moral than 90% of the believers you know.

[doc03]

99. That is a ridiculous accusation, you are telling me you don't know Christians that are,

bigots, lie, steal, cheat on their spouse, molest kids or any number of other things. They are hypocrites, that is not me judging them that's just fact. I am not passing judgment on them saying they are going to hell, I don't believe there is a hell. But Christians have no problem telling unbelievers they are going to hell, that is passing judgment.

[cbayer]

101. What is the accusation?

That I don't believe that 90% of all religious people are less moral than you?

Of course I know christians that are or have done all of those things. I also know atheists that are or have done all of those things.

Neither conveys some special status when it comes to morality.

To make a statement about 90% of a group without any data that comes anywhere near supporting that statement is really just a statement about your personal beliefs.

And it's very judgmental, as it would be if someone were to say that 90% of all atheists are amoral.

[doc03]

110. You just want to be argumentative, then run to the jury claiming

I am hurtful and disruptive. I will no longer carry on a conversation with you, have a nice day.

[cbayer]

111. Huh??

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Really.

[el_bryanto]

25. That's disturbing

Do those people never encounter an atheist? Or do they believe that all Christians are paragons of virtue?

Bryant

[rug]

26. The demographics of the participants is in Table S1.

[el_bryanto]

27. Still disturbing. nt

[cbayer]

36. This is really bad news, even though the study really should be taken with a grain of salt.

The numbers are small and the source of his subjects highly questionable.

But I do think there is some statistical validity here and it indicates an areas where there is much work to be done.

Perceptions regarding the GLBT community changed dramatically and relatively quickly. I think the same thing can be done with the atheist community.

The question is how best to achieve this.

[LostOne4Ever]

57. Probably the first step would be to copy the gay rights movement

and start a campaign to get more people to "come out" as atheists. The best way to combat this is to show people example after example after example of atheists who are good people.

As more people come out, the stigma associated with the word atheist will start to vanish, and more people will start to identify as atheist.

[cbayer]

61. Coming out is happening, though slowly, but I totally agree

that that can make a huge difference.

One of the organized atheists groups was running such a campaign, though I'm not sure where they are with it right now.

Normalizing atheism by including characters in popular media would help to. Even though the first gay characters were too often gay caricatures, it seemed to work over the long haul.

I think it will happen and perhaps we can use this as some baseline data from which we anticipate to see a change.

[cprise]

83. Gays have been dealing w/ internalized homophobia

It used to be so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I think this study shows an analogous problem for atheists.

[pinto]

98. Agree. Stigma is often rooted in seeing a group as some vague "other", imo. And often changes

when your brother, sister, cousin, coworker, neighbor, friend simply comes out as who he or she is. As part of a whole person. Someone you know. Normalization is fostered, even if a direct understanding of what it's like to be that "other" is hard to get.

[Politicalboi]

53. They may think I'm immoral

But I know religious freak ARE immoral.

[rug]

54. I don't think they were referring to you specifically.

Is there something they should know?

[SevenSixtyTwo]

55. The nicest person I ever knew

was an atheist. He was hard working, smart and caring. Loved his wife and kids and was loyal to his employer and union. He was a good man.

[rug]

60. Welcome to DU!

[bravenak]

63. They do the same thing to black people like me. Imagine that. Americans can be bigots.

Like everyone else. http://m.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thenewcivilrights/#!/entry/christian-polling-group-finds-atheists-divorce-less-than-christians,5269c67bda27f5d9d041ef12/1

[rug]

68. What does divorce have to do with it? Do you think divorce is immoral?

[bravenak]

70. I think divorce is essential. Christians have other ideas that they can speak of for them selves.

Just saying that atheists take their marriage vows seriously and divorce less even though we have no god.
Atheist (western) countries also have less crime. It is known. Americans probably don't realize these things.
Americans think stupid things all the time. Did you know that at one time Americans thought that it was okay to enslave black africans and did not consider them human? Americans have been wrong many many times.
Americans should not consider themselves the arbiters of morality. We aren't.

[cbayer]

72. To be clear, there was some really soft data presented quite a while ago

that suggested that divorce rates among atheists might be lower than among conservative christians.

I wouldn't put much stock in that "study" or use it to make a point.

There are multifactorial issues having to do with the demographics of the two groups that would need to be carefully considered before drawing any conclusions.

[bravenak]

73. Thats true of many studies.

Like this one in the op. Like americans 'think' atheist are immoral. They also 'think' drones are okay.
Americans thoughts about morality need to be examined, especially thoughts of their own morality.
Atheist do tend to divorce less, there may be a reason.

[cbayer]

74. Agree, that is the problem with doing "surveys" about religion.

Too many variables and very little ability to have control groups.

I just wouldn't use the data from that divorce study to make a point. There is not evidence to support the claim that atheists divorce less.

This one, while also soft and questionable, has been repeated in other studies and probably has a bit more merit. It at least makes one think about what could be done to reverse these kinds of findings.

[bravenak]

75. This survey was about what ameticans think not about how things actually are.

Americans need to examine their own flawed thinking in order to change their minds.
There have been studies showing atheists divorce less but i consider them flawed. Not enough information given in the studies.
My main point is that its not up to atheist to change thoughts other people have, especially when those thoughts are not facts or based on evidence.
Americans have thought a tremendous amount of bigotted bullcrap in the past and will continue to do so. People tend to think that their way is better and look down on those who do it different. Based on evidence, atheists are not immoral compared to religious groups, atheist are less likely to end up in prison in this country than christians, but still are thought to be immoral. Why? Maybe because the majority of this country is religious and they have the power to control the narrative. I watch lock up on msnbc often and i rarely see an atheist on screen. I have always found it amusing.

[cbayer]

77. Again, agree. But what is it we can do to help them rethink

their flawed thinking?

The same process has been done with other groups that have suffered discrimination and I think some of the same steps can be made.

"Normalizing" segments of the population by increasing exposure, awareness and education might be critical steps.

It's not just going to happen because we want it to.

I disagree with you. I think it is up to atheists to change the judgmental and bigoted thoughts of others. I don't think any civil rights movement can succeed without the upfront and active participation of the members being discriminated against.

So presenting the evidence you cite (that atheists are clearly not less moral) needs to be done in a way that people can hear it and understand it.

[bravenak]

78. Try putting up an atheist billboard and you get cries of christian persecution.

Try asking not to have a cross put up on public land, or asking the religious to leave their ten commandments in their churches an not on our court houses and we get attacked by the religious.
We can't change the rigid thinking of people who believe in the supernatural. They have to do it themselves.
We atheist are doing our parts by being open about who we are and pointing out the inconsistancies of the thinking of biblically centered individuals. We point out immorallities in their moral documents to try to open their eyes, and it's working. People are less religious every time we do another census.
Now we need to get people to come out of the closet so that Americans can see that their cool nice neighbors and co citizens, good people who they like and admire, are atheists. It took me years to come out, i'm black, it's very complicated in my family, i still have some people who i haven't spoken to about it. Reverends and such.

I am interested in maybe in the future getting a group of like minded atheists together to do a call in show, an ask an atheist show or something to help the community grow and give christians and others a chance to ask us questions about ourselves that they may have on their minds. So that they know we wont eat their babies. I think that may be the best i can do for the christian community to help them.

[cbayer]

81. It all depends on the billboard, imo.

Some are much better at putting across the message than others. Those that attack religion are very likely to be met with some pushback.

I don't think any civil rights movement has succeeded by putting up messages that basically say that everyone not like them is bad, stupid or delusional. That's just wrongheaded.

Concerns about church/state separation are shared by both religious and non-religious people. It's a perfect example where atheists and theists can work together. Those that want to violate the constitution have no standing.

Again, you can not expect people to change their thinking on their own. If you are unwilling or unable to help them see the light, I don't think you can complain when they don't see it.

And attacking their religious beliefs just isn't going to get you there. It would be light GLBT activists telling straight people that there is something wrong with them.

The key is in respecting that some people believe and some people don't and as long as they don't infringe on each other, we are all cool. Prejudice in either direction is not going to further the cause of reversing the misperceptions cited in this study.

So, I totally agree with you about the need for more people to come out of the closet.

You have travelled a particularly rough road and I have read some extremely poignant stories written by black atheists.

Your idea about a call in show is exactly what I think we need to be doing. People fear what they do not know and atheists just aren't that scary.

It's been really great talking to you and I hope we can talk more in the future.

[bravenak]

82. Nice talking to you too.

See ya around!

[ladjf]

102. Those who shun objective thinking are not likely to achieve wisdom. nt

[rug]

103. “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”

― Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism: The Essays

[ladjf]

104. I don't believe that "every man" would fit Schopenhauer's description, but, the word "many"

might well be the truth.

Here's another quote you might like.

“The leech's kiss, the squid's embrace,
The prurient ape's defiling touch:
And do you like the human race?
No, not much.”
― Aldous Huxley, Ape and Essence



However, I've never thought of apes as being either "prurient" or "defiling". They are , in general, peacefulvegetarianss.

[MellowDem]

113. Millennia of religion-inspired bigotry...

Passed down through indoctrination and conditioning. We've already seen how it leads to self-loathing homosexuals and ruins their lives, not surprising it does the same for some atheists.

And not surprising at the level of bigotry religion can inspire. That's god-level bigotry, right there.