U.S. trusts lowest for Atheists

[Proud_Democratt]

<snip>
Atheists are America's least trusted group, according to a national survey conducted by University sociology researchers.
Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

<snip>
"I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate," Foley said.


http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

[Warpy]

1. Yeah, all that negative PR from the pulpit by preachers who are

terrified of losing their meal ticket has done that trick, certainly nothing that atheists who live ethical lives and desire nothing more than to be left alone by fulminating preachers have done.

It's one of the sickest parts of organized religion, the demonization of everyone outside any particular sect.

[Epiphany4z]

2. I think most people don't

Know that they actually know an atheist. I have shocked more than one friend when the subject comes up...they try to tell I am not an Atheist..I can't be..I share so many of there values...well surprise suprise..I am one.

I do sometimes wonder how open I should be about it. I mean I like to let people know so they can see I don't have hornes,ect..

I think for most people Atheist is just an unknown.

[Proud_Democratt]

4. Atheists/Agnostics only make up 15% of

the U.S. population. However that is up from 2000 when it was at 8.7%.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. I think we people of faith can thank

the fundamentalists for that.

Winning souls...heh.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Jews make up only about 1.25%

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

So if acceptability to distrust and/or hate is related to proportion....

[endarkenment]

44. 15% is a lot, actually.

According to wikipedia, african americans are 12.9% of the population. Catholics are like 24% of the population and Baptists are 16% (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm). So at 15% we are almost as numerous as Baptists and far more numerous than Lutherans (4%).

Actually I think that 15% number probably includes those who responded with 'no religion' when asked, which is really not the same as self identified atheists or agnostics. The same site above has self identified atheists and agnostics at around 1%.

[Trajan]

123. Worldwide numbers ....

All religions or belief systems by number of adherents

This listing distinguishes between organized religion, which has a single belief code and religious hierarchies, and informal religions, such as Chinese folk religions.

1. Christianity 2.1 billion (Began: ca. 27 AD/CE)
* Roman Catholicism: 1.085 billion
* Protestantism: 590 million
* Eastern Orthodoxy: 200 million
* Anglican: 84 million
* Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrians, and other Christians: 350 million
* Latter Day Saints (Mormons) 12.6 million (Began: ca. 1830)

2. Islam 1.3 billion (Began: ca. 622 AD/CE)
* Sunnism: 940 million
* Shi'ism: 170 million
* Sufi, Ibadiyyah, Druze and other Muslims : 80 million

3. Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious 1.1 billion
* Category includes a wide range of beliefs, without specifically adhering to a religion. The category also includes humanism, deism, pantheism, and freethought. For more information, see the Adherents.com discussion of this category.

4. Hinduism 900 million (Began: 15th century BC/BCE)
* Vaishnavism: 580 million
* Shaivism: 220 million
* Shaktism/Smartism/Arya Samaj/Other sects: 150 million

5. Buddhism 708 million (Began: 6th century BC/BCE)
* Mahayana: 185 million
* Theravada: 124 million
* Chinese/Japanese Buddhism: 394 million

6. Primal indigenous 300 million
* Not a single organized religion, includes a wide range of primarily Asian traditional or tribal religions, including Shamanism and Paganism.

7. African traditional and diasporic 100 million
* Not a single organized religion, this includes traditional African beliefs such as Yoruba as well as diasporic beliefs such as Santeria (which itself draws from Catholicism) and Vodoun.

8. Shintoism 69 million (Began: 300 BC/BCE)
* This number states the number of practicing followers of Shintoism; for if partial or ethnic followers of Shintoism were included, the number would fall around 100–115 million.

9. Sikhism 23 million (Began: 1500s)

10. Juche 19 million
* Not considered a religion by adherents, who view it as secular and anti-revisionist. Juche is the political ideology of the Workers Party of Korea, the ruling party of the DPRK; some have argued it constitutes a religion due to its Great Leader Worship characteristics. The number is approximately the entire population of the country.

11. Spiritism 15 million (Began: mid-19th century)
* Not a single organized religion, includes a variety of beliefs including some forms of Umbanda.

12. Judaism 15 million (Began: 13th century BC/BCE)

13. Falun Gong 10-100 million* (Began: 1992)
* Not necessarily considered a religion by adherents or outside observers. No membership or rosters, thus the actual figure of practitioners is impossible to confirm.

14. Bahá'í Faith 7 million (Began: 19th century)

15. Jainism 4.2 million (Began: 6th century BC/BCE)

16. Cao Dai 4 million (Began: 1926)

17. Humanism** over 3 million

18. Zoroastrianism 2.6 million (Began: ca. 6th century BC/BCE)

19. Tenrikyo 2 million (Began: 1838)

20. Neopaganism 1 million (Began: 20th century)
* A blanket term for several religions like Wicca, Asatru, Druidry, and many reconstructionist religions

21. Unitarian Universalism 800,000 (Began: 1961)

22. Rasta 600,000 (Began: early 1930s)

------------

It is interesting to note that NONreligion is ranked third, just behind Islam and higher than Hinduism ....

It is also interesting to note that Judaism, the source of BOTH Christianity and Islam, ranks WAY down the list ....

I am atheist, and so I see some hope in these numbers .... but I also recognize that using such numbers in argument for 'rightness' constitutes a fallacy ... Argumentum Ad Populatum, or Argumentum Ad Numerum ..... Either way, one cannot use these numbers to justify or condemn the beliefs themselves ...

As far as Atheists being 'trusted' ... well WHY exactly are they not trusted ?

Not trusted to what ? .... keep a secret ? ... water the flowerbed ? ... wash their clothes ?

I trust atheists FAR more than any other human type .... They have no axe to grind, and no 'forgiveness' to fall back upon, when 'needed' ...

[arenean]

170. 40% in the UK

I got this from Wikipedia:

"In Great Britain, a poll in 2004 by the BBC put the number of people who do not believe in a god to be 40%,<18> In the YouGov poll men were less likely to believe in god than women and younger people were less likely to believe in god than older people.

In early 2004, it was announced that atheism would be taught during religious education classes in the United Kingdom.<29> A spokesman for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority stated: "There are many children in England who have no religious affiliation and their beliefs and ideas, whatever they are, should be taken very seriously."

Apart from weddings and funerals, I think most churches in England would struggle to have a "sell-out crowd". And even there, the congregation are probably on the "very mature" side....

[MikeNearMcChord]

8. Part of the problem, is some people

confuse Atheism, with Devil worship. To them the two are the same.

[Epiphany4z]

14. yep I agree

but like I said if they don't know even know they actually know an atheist they go with that idea. I mean I am your average lady next door...I pass very well as a soccer mom...not Satan's daughter..lmao.

[TechBear_Seattle]

32. More of the problem, is many people

Seem to consider anything other than their own brand of snake oil to be Devil worship. You see that among many Christian and Muslim groups, in particular.

[Proud_Democratt]

57. They also connect Paganism with Devil worship.

[rocktivity]

64. The opposite of not believing in a god is believing in a devil?

If you DON'T believe in god, why in the world WOULD you believe in the devil? If you do, you're not an atheist--you're a SATANIST!

:crazy:
rocknation

[sybylla]

25. I agree. It has been my experience that most people don't know

They have some idea from their clergy of what Atheists are supposed to look like. Most of the descriptions of Atheists which I've had the displeasure to hear straight from the preacher's mouth can be boiled down to "angry, spiteful, maladjusted sociopaths who can only lash out at a world they cannot understand without God's love and guidance."

I don't very often tell people I'm an Atheist. It really has nothing to do with my daily life and interactions with people. But when asked or when put in a spot by those who assume "we're all Christians, right," I get a great deal of joy from opening the eyes of people who thought they knew me and who thought they knew what an Atheist should look like.

I am always saddened by the fact that bigotry against Atheists remains acceptable in this country. I know my kind, thoughtful and very intelligent children will not have the same opportunities as other children in the US if they profess openly their lack of belief. They will have to tread a very careful line between proudly being who they are and cautiously hiding parts of themselves from the world.

What I find more saddening is the fact that there are so many "Christians" on this board who spend an awful lot of energy trying to deny that Atheists suffer any bigotry at all. And I doubt there is any study that could convince them otherwise.


On edit: I have a fabulous relationship with my Amish neighbors of 15 years. They never talk about religion with me, only make statements on occasion about praying or about how they understand the world and God's/Jesus's relation to it. They have given me compliments over the years for being good parents, for having such good, hard-working kids, for being such good neighbors. We look out for one another in this very rural area. They have been ever grateful since that day over 14 years ago when we put their escaped cows back in their barn one cold Sunday morning while they were at church. It has always been on my mind whether or not they would say the same if they knew that we never went to church and why.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Yup. "Atheist" is the "other", just like "communist" is. All the yahoos

who rail against communists can't define what a communist is but they sure are by damn a threat. As are atheists. And even worse, the godless communists.

Me, I'm a godless communist hippie -- a triple threat.

[bloom]

136. "I think for most people Atheist is just an unknown."

Between that and the fact that atheists don't exactly share beliefs - make it understandable to me that non-atheists wouldn't know what atheists think.

I don't think that people's distrust in and of itself is a reason to condemn them. And I don't really know of a way to educate non-atheists - other than people who are atheists coming out and educating people individually.

Of course - those atheists who condemn non-atheists are not really going to create any kind of understanding or acceptance among non-atheists - and probably will create the opposite. Some don't seem to want or at least to expect any understanding. Maybe they are right - that from some people they would never get it - but maybe it's the approach.

If atheists were a group - we could have a marketing strategy. Many of the things that people post here - such as mocking people who go so far as to tolerate religion, etc. - making assumptions that people are more against atheists than they really are (and being defensive because of their imagination) - do not really help anyone's cause, AFAIC.

[beam me up scottie]

153. "I don't really know of a way to educate non-atheists"

Really?

Isn't that what you're trying to do every time you attack atheists on DU?

Like I said, with athiests like you, the reich wingers are out of a job.

[NNadir]

3. It's why in my public life, I'm in the closet.

Being one, I know how much atheists are hated.

[Epiphany4z]

6. I often wonder

How open I should be. I mean we can't change anyones idea of what an atheist is if we have no representation but at the same time I hate how repubs like to point out there a lot of atheist in the Dem party....and of course follows the THEY WANNA TAKE AWAY OUR BIBLES!!! stuff.

anyway just my own random thoughts on the subject.

[Finder]

11. Repubs have more atheists than Dems, IMO...

just as Repubs have as many or more homosexuals.(enough to form Log Cabin repubs)I think sometimes we let the generalizations define the facts.

[Proud_Democratt]

13. I would agree with that.

I would also venture to say that "regimented" or routine than Dems. Democratts are probably more religously diverse also. This is just my opinion though.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. Really?

Elaborate a bit. I find that interesting.

[Finder]

38. About atheists or homosexuals?

Not sure if I dare.lol

[trotsky]

66. Not so sure about that.

Surveys I've seen tend to peg atheists and other freethinkers about 75-25 Dem to Repub.

[Finder]

80. Libertarians tend to be secular and vote republican...

Neo-conservatives are mostly secular BUT have no problem using the religious bloc.

Marketing the republican party as the party of faith is purely a Rovian strategy to get the usual non-voting religious right to the polls.

Also, the assumption that all faith leaders/clergy are actually religious is a mistake. Especially here in the US, religion is business.

We are a country of useful idiots.

[Zhade]

83. Careful - secular does not equal atheist.

You probably know that, but just to be clear, I would venture to say that most believers are also secular-minded, in that they want church and state separate.

Equating 'secular' with 'atheist' (which I'm not accusing you of doing, btw) is the same mistake that the hack who wrote the purge-the-atheists screed for Raw Story (intentionally?) made, which was both a way to smear all atheists AND insult secular-minded believers.

We must always be careful to keep the terms exact in their context.

[endarkenment]

46. I never hide it anymore.

Screw that. Live your life. Are you ashamed of who you are? If other people have a problem with my lack of religion, that is their problem, not mine.

[Proud_Democratt]

48. It's not easy to "come out of the belief closet"

Some people are supportive....but the ones that you thought were your true friends, will turn on you.

[endarkenment]

52. I'm slowly acquiring the demeanor of a grumpy old man.

I really used to care what people thought of me, now I am just an angry old hippie/atheist/anarchist and I don't care what anyone else thinks, and I share my political and spiritual world view at every opportunity. I took a 20 year spin through conformity, and I am back where I was 30 years ago, relearning all the things I had right back then and bringing my acquired wisdom to bear on those things I got wrong. I am enjoying my role as apostate curmudgeon. I especially like horrifying (male and female) soccer mom types with my disconcerting outlook on our dystopic reality.

[NMMNG]

67. I'll second that

So-called best friends of multiple decades can turn on you when you tell them you no longer believe in god. You'd likely be safer telling them you're selling your body for extra money.

[Dorian Gray]

108. This is so sad.

I just can't imagine that. I've said it ages ago in another topic, but it's a blessing being from NYC where pretty much anybody and their religious beliefs are accepted (or ignored) by most of the people around them. It's a non-issue here.

[Silent3]

118. I grew up in NJ...

...and live in NH now. I don't doubt the grief others go through, but it's really hard for me to identify with since I've never had any problems talking about my atheism. I find it really hard to imagine strong reactions from anyone.

It's not like I've gotten no reaction at all -- my own father wishes I'd "come back" to faith, which is kind of funny in a way because unless you count my youth before I began to think through religious issues for myself in my teens, I've never had faith.

Maybe it's just the life I lead -- living in the northeast, working in a technological field, not having kids, having a small circle of friends and not being a social butterfly -- but the idea of being discriminated against for being an atheist seems foreign to me. Maybe if I hung out with a more diverse crowd their would be more people I could offend with my atheism. :)

Of course, I know on a practical level I'd have practically zero chance getting into public office and being openly atheist, but it's hard to imagine having any difficulty getting a software engineering job because someone found out I was an atheist.

[NNadir]

55. I have business reasons to not push the matter.

It's not like I attend religious services (except of course weddings and funerals), but on the other hand I know I would lose some business advantages if I was open about my lack of belief in a god.

I have a family to support.

I'm not trying to convince anyone else to be an atheist. There doesn't seem to be a point for pushing it.

I don't feel that it's something on which I will be defended. I know for a fact that it would have caused my children problems in their schools, which are public schools. I know the descrimation resulting would have not been legal, but as a practical matter its real.

George H.W. Bush once spoke on the subject of how he didn't regard atheists as full citizens. Personally, I'm appalled by the ethics and morals of many people who are not atheists, but I have to live in the real world.

[Epiphany4z]

56. I don't as a rule hide it

as a rule ...most everyone knows..except one catholic fundy type aunt. She would think I was the devil himself. Also she is going threw her second bout of breast cancer and her faith gives her comfort I just wouldn't want to rattle her cage when it comes to religion...now when it comes to GW we go a few rounds..lmao...I did this past year finally come out to her as liberal...she dealt better than I thought and we have some good debates.

I just wonder now and then if I want add to the Dems are Atheist thing ..particularly when so many are sure Dem/Atheist want to take there bibles away and make them worship satan. I have decided most of the time not to hide the fact and I try stand up and let people see I really am no different than anyone else...ya know no horns no baby sacrifises....although I do get to sleep sunday

[beam me up scottie]

61. Uh, I would probably lose my job if I came out at work.

The very people who hate us so much also sign some of our paychecks.

[heidler1]

104. It's a whole lot easier to drop the facade once you retire.

When I worked for IBM it would have been risky and my top security clearance would have been effected.

[bowens43]

5. Well, I trust Atheists more then I trust bible thumpers.....

[arcane1]

9. Amen to that!!!

:thumbsup:

[Finder]

7. 140 people is not representative, IMO...

and I agree with others, most people would be shocked to find out their friends or relatives were actually atheist. I also do not think people are given the option to "allow" marriages these days.

[Proud_Democratt]

10. It's a survey, not a census.

There are many factors here besides numbers........mood, tone and wording of question, area, time of day, etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. 2000 households in the survey; 140 in-depth interviews

2000 is a good number for a survey.

[rocktivity]

12. I suppose it is hard to trust someone

who has no need or desire for faith in something "higher". Yet they live their lives, work, eat, love, and, most astounding, even make morally sound choices. But WHY hate atheists? Isn't it really more like fear? Or jealousy?

:headbang:
rocknation

[redqueen]

16. definitely fear...

'what if they're right, and i've been used by those i've trusted all this time?'

:scared:

[Proud_Democratt]

20. Perhaps a type of prejudice...

out of ignorance. And I'll add that there are non-believers that are bigotted against believers, also.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. "Atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially

acceptable to hate."

It amazes me that ANY group can be hated and it is 'socially acceptable'. I guess us atheists should stick together, for I sure trust us more than I do the religious!

[BlueJazz]

17. I am impressed..Boy!, they sure have me Pegged.

I'm an Atheist and I'm one Evil monster...
Hmmmm..what's for dinner?..Ah....Heh..Heh..the grade school gets out in 1/2 hour...
Roast Child??..Yes!!!.....I better get down there....

[maxsolomon]

18. what did we DO, anyway?

atheist doesn't mean NO ETHICS OR MORALS.

i don't gamble, i don't steal. i do favors without expecting anything in return. i think about the nature of the divine all the time. i even like Jesus's sayings, albeit in heretical form.

i just refuse to believe in the monotheist fairy tale with it's conception of God as primitive as that of any animist religion. just this weekend the pope begged god to "rouse yourself"! as if an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnescient being is taking a millenia-long nap.

'you cannot petition the lord with prayer' - jim morrison, soft parade.

[Proud_Democratt]

22. Speaking for myself only...

I have a natural rejection for anything "supernatural". I don't believe in luck, Bigfoot, gods, etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. While I also reject the supernatural, I don't see 'luck' or

cryptozoology as fitting that definition.

Bigfoot is a natural theory about the natural world (which is probably wrong).

And luck only impinges on the supernatural if you believe you can influence it. Why does one soldier come home and another not? 99% luck. Why did the guy who ran the red light hit the car behind me and not me? Pure luck. "Luck" is just another way of saying "shit happens".

[Proud_Democratt]

37. You get my meaning though...right?

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Absolutely. I guarantee there is much more agreement here

than disagreement.

And I'm not going to burn you at the stake for disagreeing with me.

(Hoping you will return the favor):thumbsup:

[Proud_Democratt]

42. Not into burning....but there are a few televangelists that

I could watch being burned....Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson.

[Proud_Democratt]

43. Bring some hot dogs and marshmallows and we could have

a fundie fire.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. It's just a big unknown

to most folks.

[sybylla]

34. Of course atheist don't lack morals and ethics, but that's what's taught

in church. Those very same people who vote for the chimp because he's a christian and therefore must be moral and ethical would vote against an atheist because they can't possibly be moral and ethical without god.

I've seen it. I've heard it. And I find it sickening. But churches are allowed to say what they think, even if it is hatespeech.

[Proud_Democratt]

35. And that would qualify as "bearing false witness"...

wouldn't it? Also..."thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" would be a pertinent statement.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. It's largely due to the "Big Daddy" god of the fundies --

they don't believe that a person will behave unless he is terrified into behaving, and if you have no god to terrify you, you will naturally not behave.

Discipline and morals are imposed from outside, from the pulpit or the book. They are not internalized, which is why, when this brand of Christian goes bad, they go VERY bad.

[Proud_Democratt]

65. Great point made!

[NMMNG]

68. "atheist doesn't mean NO ETHICS OR MORALS"

But too many people think it does. They think that without some religious rule book or "higher power" watching over you/putting fear into you, you won't know how to act properly. A friend of mine insists that the reason that kids are such terrors today is that prayer is no longer allowed in schools. "And since they aren't allowed to pray, they don't have the fear of God hanging over them to keep them in line."

So since we don't believe in a god, we aren't scared into submission, and therefore we can't help but be immoral and unethical.

[endarkenment]

19. Yeah!

Go atheists! I'm glad to know that americans, who are without doubt in general the planet's stupidest people, despise and distrust us. I am glad that we are rated below muslims, homosexuals and the mysterious 'other groups'. I indeed do not share the mega church exurban sprawl hummer fast food burger and fries american idol vision of american society that they cling to. I celebrate janet jackson's bejeweled nipple launched into their overstuffed living rooms causing them to choke on their nachos, and I recall fondly my late father in law, who never forgave me for despoiling his jewish daughter and raising our kids as misbegotten atheist spawn.

Yeah Team! Are we the new n-word?

[Proud_Democratt]

27. We are indeed the new N-word...

:)

[Bretttido]

29. Well said!

Whenever I get asked about my religion, I don't know whether to respond with atheist or agnostic... even though I lean more toward atheist, I find myself replying with agnostic. I assume people will either not know what agnostic means (oh, I've never heard of that religion) or will view it more favorably than atheism. But screw that, I'm going to answer ATHEIST from now on!

[Strong Atheist]

75. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

125. The FSM is TRUE

The link between the decline in the number of pirates and the RISE in global temperatures is UNDENIABLE.

You obviously had some traumatic, negative experience with religion for you to turn away from the FSM.

[panader0]

21. I'm an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac.

I lay awake at night and wonder if there really is a dog...........

[Strong Atheist]

76. Hardy har har! nt.

[stopbush]

28. Amazing how we are "hated" for believing in one less god than the Xtians.

That's what it comes down to.

[TygrBright]

31. That's just... so.... ODD

I've known atheists all my life; they're no different from believers. My "trust" in someone doesn't have anything to do with whether they are a believer or non-believer, (and certainly not which faith they profess if they are a believer!) it has to do with what I've observed about them from their actions, the choices they've made, and what they've said about what their beliefs (or lack thereof) mean to them in affecting their actions and the choices they've made.

People who are stridently rigid, closed-minded, exclusionary in their thinking, and insensitive to the beliefs of others are found everywhere on the spectrum of belief, in every faith, among those who profess belief in just about every sect, deists, agnostics, AND atheists. Them I have trouble trusting regardless of where on the spectrum they self-identify.

I've known atheists who are more constantly mindful of their personal (and admirable) ethical principles than many professed believers, and more respectful of others' beliefs. I've known atheists who are belligerent, offensive, and insensitive in manner but their actions demonstrate a strong personal ethos of respect for the value of humanity. I've known atheists who are just assholes, too.

How is that different from believers? Why does it make a difference to anyone? Why should it make a difference to anyone? What am I missing here?

baffledly,
Bright

[manic expression]

40. Can you feel the bigotry? n/t

[Proud_Democratt]

45. You can definitely feel prejudice....

after disclosing your non-belief. They usually are in disbelief at first. I guess it's because they can't "profile" you beforehand.

[manic expression]

49. That's terrible

do you live in a mostly conservative area or is it normal?

[Proud_Democratt]

53. Outside St. Louis... about 25 miles.

[ozone_man]

50. We can't be trusted to not make fun of imaginary beings.

:evilgrin:

[onager]

51. Hey! Wrong demographic!

Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

Fortunately, we atheists don't want to marry children...

...unlike Catholic priests.

:rofl:

Sometimes I just slay myself...

[Strong Atheist]

77. Oh, that was bad... nt.

[Zebedeo]

54. I think it is because atheists,

having no belief in any objective morality, must make up their own moral rules as they go along. This could turn out to be quite moral or quite immoral as judged by religious standards, but there is no way to know. Atheists would as a result be regarded by many Americans as highly unpredictable and thus, untrustworthy.

In my view, having an objective code of morality/ethics is important in order to gain the trust of others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. The objective code of morality is that of the society we live in

On the whole, more reliable in the present day than an arbitary one set thousands of years ago.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Excellent example of the intolerance we see all the time, Captain!

Good thing you don't really think that way.


I'd hate to think you were a bigot.

[Zebedeo]

62. Just offering a possible explanation

for the observed phenomenon of why atheists are the most distrusted group. When an average Joe hears that someone is an atheist, he has no basis for knowing whether the atheist will act morally according to Joe's religious standards. Could be that the atheist does act morally, but then again, maybe not. Joe has no way of knowing whether the atheist even has a standard of morality. If the atheist does have a standard, is it subject to constant revision, based on expedience? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Certainly not Joe.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Right.

We all know who the Joe is here.


Joe.

[trotsky]

79. Hey, that's JUST like what happens when I hear someone is a Christian!

I mean, are they a Christian like Bush, and feel that invading foreign lands and killing brown-skinned people is OK?

Are they Christians like the KKK and want to kill other races?

Or are they a Christian like Martin Luther King who wanted peace and social justice?

I just have no idea! They have such subjective moralities! I can definitely empathize with what Joe is going thru.

[Zebedeo]

90. See post below for my response

here

[beam me up scottie]

93. Yes. we know, Cap'n Tolerance. Christians are morally superior to atheists

So you've told us.

You can't trust atheists, blah blah blah...

Not only that, but it's a safe bet that even the most corrupt christian would have better morals than than one of us because we don't blah blah blah...




Whenever someone claims there's no fundamentalist christian bigotry on DU, I will reference your posts.

At least they're good for something besides comic relief.

[Random_Australian]

69. Except you don't have an objective code of ethics.

Unless of course you have a mind outside of yourself guiding your actions!

(You could argue, of course, argue that you are trying to interpret some objective morality, but given that that is subjective, you end up with a subjective morality)

As for atheism bieng unpredictable - remember that deciding what is right nd wrong entails bith cognition and processing, thankyou. (ie, athiesm is ridiculously skewed toward well-behaved (in other words good) moral standards, because the standards are created from some set of information like 'I will treat others as I wish to be treated')

[rocktivity]

82. DING DING DING! Random_Australian, you're our grand prize winner!

...what is right and wrong entails birth cognition and processing, thank you...
And seeing as how morality was around long before organized religion was (it must have been because mankind wouldn't have lasted otherwise), it's dishonest to equate the two, and a form of snobbery to believe that being religious gives one some kind of "edge." Anyone who is capable of doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do is "moral".

:headbang:
rocknation

[Random_Australian]

88. Thanks, but you pointed out one BIG typo, that should be 'both' not

'birth' but the point actually remains the same.

[NMMNG]

70. Righty-o

And we all know that the "objective code of morality/ethics" that the fundamentalists operate by is incredibly moral.

I can understand why you consider "objective" codes so much more moral than the allegedly "non-objective" codes of atheists. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

71. Isn't that what they used during the Inquisition?

I'll take my chances with the godless heathens.

[NMMNG]

73. Yes

And it's what they're using in this fabulous new video game-Left Behind:Eternal Forces.

You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959

But who cares if they brutally slaughter anybody who disagrees with them, as long as they have an "objective morality". :sarcasm:

[Zebedeo]

86. It's not "allegedly"

Ask the atheist posters on this board. So far, I am not aware of any who profess to live by an objective moral code.

This is not to suggest that atheists are immoral; just that, as far as I can tell, they do not profess to live by an objective code of morality.

I believe that is the reason that they are the most distrusted group. What is your alternative theory for this phenomenon?

[Random_Australian]

91. I rule out your explanation, because you have no objective code of

ethics; also neither do any of the Christians, also the variability in atheism is at least paralelled in variability in Christianity.

In other words 'I am not aware of any who live by an ojective moral code' is applicable equally to both sides; in other words that means that at that level there is no difference between atheist and Christians, that means that this is not what is used to differentiate the two.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[NMMNG]

101. What objective moral code do you live by?

:shrug:


And my alternative theory for the phenomenon? People are bigots.

[Zebedeo]

111. God's will

defines the objective moral code by which I live.

Your "people are bigots" alternative theory does not explain the phenomenon. Gays, Muslims, African Americans, and immigrants are all more trusted than atheists. If the reason for distrust were bigotry, you would expect that these groups would be at least as distrusted as atheists. But they're not. Why do you suppose that is?

[riderinthestorm]

114. Mistrust of the "other"

Most people have met a gay person, a Muslim person, an African American person, an immigrant thereby they can "place" that person on a gut level but they can't point to an atheist since atheists rarely identify themselves. Most people don't have a stereotypical imprint of what an atheist looks/acts like. Thus it's easier to just assume negatively about them and their actions.

It doesn't help that famous atheists such as Stalin or Lenin and the brutality of their regimes is frequently erroneously confused with their atheism rather than communism, thereby compounding the problem.

It IS bigotry in my opinion.

[Proud_Democratt]

115. Maybe , in general, that people that distrust Atheists

because it is often stereotyped as evil or heathen-like. Christianity is often logoed with angels, clouds, haloes, etc.

[NMMNG]

120. God's will?

God's will as defined by whom? By the Old Testament (and which book/chapter/verse)? The New Testament (which book/chapter/verse)? God's will as defined by GWB? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Catholics? Lutherans? Methodists? Southern Baptists? Muslims? Jews? The raving man on the street corner?

There is nothing objective about "God's will" when it is and has been defined by millions of different people over the past several thousand years.



Your "people are bigots" alternative theory does not explain the phenomenon. Gays, Muslims, African Americans, and immigrants are all more trusted than atheists. If the reason for distrust were bigotry, you would expect that these groups would be at least as distrusted as atheists. But they're not. Why do you suppose that is?


Other than white Christian males, every group in America is subject to some form of bigotry. One group or another must be at the bottom for each ranking. It does not say anything about the groups, but about the bigots. Should America get over it's current religious obsession things would surely change. Go to Canada, Europe or any other area where residents are not as fixated on religion and you would see a very different result for this survey.

[SPKrazy]

130. God's Will Is Objective?

many people throughout history have started wars believing it was "God's will" (present pResident included in that)

What is God's will?

I believe it is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and we should treat each other as we want to be treated.

I don't see Atheists would not have this same code of treating others with respect, helping others, etc. that this implies.

[Crunchy Frog]

132. My alternative theory for the phenomenon is BIGOTRY.

The group that I most mistrust is fundamentalist religious people of any stripe.

When I encounter Xtians who loudly proclaim their own religiosity, my expectation is that they will be bigoted, small minded, hateful, petty people, obsessed with judging other people while believing that anything they do goes since they've been "saved" and everything bad that they may do has already been forgiven.

It does not surprise me that so many financial and sexual scandals seem to be associated with fundies, or that we're continuously hearing of new, horrific cases of child rape and sexual depravity from those quarters. An objective code of morality that includes mass murder, rape, and incest does not inspire any degree of trust in me at all. I would as soon trust the morality of Charles Manson as I would an Xtian of that stripe.

This is not how I view the vast majority of Christian DUers. There are a tiny number of exceptions though.

[beam me up scottie]

133. KaPOW!

An objective code of morality that includes mass murder, rape, and incest does not inspire any degree of trust in me at all. I would as soon trust the morality of Charles Manson as I would an Xtian of that stripe.

:patriot:

[Evoman]

72. Thats a bit silly though, don't you think.

I mean, I have yet to meet two christians who have the same sort of morality or ethics. Some christians think its immoral to have premarital sex, some do not. Some think war is always unjustified, others do not. Many christians would disagree at what point they can no longer turn the other cheek. Most christians have a moral system thats a lot more sophisticated than biblical morality..i.e. supporting free speech and abortion is not covered in the bible at all. Atheists, just like liberal christians, inherit their moral code in kindergarten....don't steal, don't hit, treat others nicely, share as much as you, help others, improve yourself, learn....and not all of these concepts are taken from the bible. I don't remember my kindergarten teacher (or my parents) quoting the bible.

Not that I disagree with you...a big part of the religious peoples fears about atheists are due to their own misunderstanding about morality. They fear that which they don't understand...and while they can understand muslims and jews, trying to understand whats its like to live without god is probably harder.

The fact is...we would all be a lot better off if we tried to understand why we make certain moral choices in the modern world that are not covered in the bible. Does the bible say we should not beat are kids half to death? No, but we know its wrong. Does the bible say we should not take slaves? No, but we know its wrong.

[Zebedeo]

89. Sure, you can't tell for sure about Christians, either

There have been plenty of untrustworthy Christians. How 'bout that guy in Wichita, the BTK (bind, torture, kill) serial murderer? He wasn't trustworthy at all, was he?

But at least you know that someone who professes to be a Christian, if she is telling the truth about her beliefs, believes that there are rules established by a source external to her - a source that sees all, knows all, and will be aware of her actions and whether they conform to those objective rules. This gives people some comfort that there is a good chance that the Christian will be deserving of trust. It is not, however, a guarantee of trustworthiness.

I am curious as to what surveys say is the most trusted group of people. Does anyone know this?

[Random_Australian]

94. subjective rules, after all, the rules in the Bible seem different to

different people.

Sure they will think they will be judged if they cross the rules, but they made the rules. To conform to what they want to hear.

In summary, they still have equal variation in what the rules are, therefore they have equal capacity for very different actions.

[trotsky]

106. Now wait a minute.

at least you know that someone who professes to be a Christian, if she is telling the truth about her beliefs, believes that there are rules established by a source external to her

How the hell is this some kind of advantage? What requires these "rules established by an external source" to be GOOD rules? There's hundreds of millions of people in the world whose rules THEY believe quite strongly were established by an external source who sees all, knows all, and will punish them if they don't obey, to mean they must kill all non-believers - including YOU.

Surveys on who is trustworthy or not only reveal society's biases and prejudices. And since there are a whole lot of people who think like you - that atheists are morally reprehensible and Christians are always good, decent people - surveys will show those intolerant biases.

I am so sick of your superiority complex over your religion, Zeb. You are the worst example of what it means to be a "Christian" that I've ever seen on DU.

[Zebedeo]

110. Superiority complex?

I don't know how you got that from my post. I'm just offering a theory to explain the observed phenomenon. I'm not suggesting that atheists are morally reprehensible or that Christians are always good, decent people. I have never made that contention. In fact, in the very post of mine to which you responded, I pointed out that the BTK serial murderer professed to be a Christian and that he was very untrustworthy. Your accusation that I believe that all Christians are good and all atheists are immoral is a classic STRAW MAN, and a preposterous one at that.

When you use a straw man like that, it reveals the profound weakness in your argument.

The fact is that atheists are the most distrusted group of people in America. You seem to have no interest in finding out why. Instead, you are content to just chalk it up to the intolerance of everyone except atheists. That, it seems to me, is sticking your head in the sand.

[trotsky]

112. I'm not the one arguing anything here. You are.

So the only weak arguments around here are yours.

And I know full well why atheists are distrusted, it's because of unfounded stereotypes that people like you perpetuate.

[Proud_Democratt]

169. You've made good points

in your post. Prejudice is mostly sheer ignorance of other people's faith, culture, etc.

[Strong Atheist]

78. Describe to me what an "objective" value is. Then apply it definitively

to these problems:

1. Is abortion "right" or "wrong", and under what circumstances?

For Instance: rape, health of mother, etc.

2. Is killing another human "right" or "wrong", and under what circumstances?

For instance: assassinating Hitler, self defense, euthanasia, death penalty, etc.

If there are these "objective moral standards", it should be easy to get everyone to agree on them, just like we all agree the sun is yellow. I breathlessly await your "objective morality" revelations that we can all see and agree on, thus ending all human strife...

[Zebedeo]

85. Morality is often dependent on circumstances

An act that is moral in one circumstance may be immoral in another circumstance. Your questions are unanswerable, though. I can't identify all circumstances under which killing is moral and all circumstances under which it is immoral. It would be a never-ending list.

Some examples can easily be thought of, though:

It is usually moral to kill in self-defense or in defense of innocent others. It is usually moral for a soldier to kill enemy soldiers. It is usually moral for correctional officers to kill condemned prisoners by lawful means in carry out a properly issued death warrant. Etc.

As for your supposition that "it should be easy to get everyone to agree on them," I hardly think that is the case. I certainly never suggested that it would be easy. But I am totally on board with your plan to end all human strife, if possible.

[Random_Australian]

95. In other words, they are not objective?

the words 'death warrant' really gets to the heart of this - I say it is not moral, you say it is, who is right?

In other words, you could attempt to make a list, but for any given item or action, for the there could be two different opinions on what it is even when both gather there 'source' of morals from the same place.

by the by, that last sentence was awful good to hear. We may disagree over some things but I don't think we have more differences that commonalities. :) The people, reasonably united, especially over some issue eg. the government on which there is broad agreement, can never be defeated!

[Zebedeo]

97. Commonalities

This forum begets much disagreement. I think that is inevitable in an open forum about a topic such as Religion and Theology.

Yet for all our differences, we share many more similarities. It's nice to recognize that fact from time to time. :toast:

[Random_Australian]

102. SIMILARITIES! That's the word! I had a complete mental blank!

:toast:

[Strong Atheist]

105. Your statement:

Your questions are unanswerable, though. I can't identify all circumstances under which killing is moral and all circumstances under which it is immoral. It would be a never-ending list.

is true, and it is true because there are no "objective values"...

[Zebedeo]

109. Not so

There are objective values. But you have asked me to identify all circumstances, which is an infinite list. Because I am finite, I can't provide an infinite number of descriptions of circumstances.

What if I asked you to describe all planets in the universe that have an atmosphere. The answer is an objective fact, and yet you cannot answer my question, because the list would be too long and require too much work to prepare. That does not mean that there is not an objective truth as to how many planets have atmospheres. There is. What you have asked me to do is even harder, because describing "all circumstances" requires a response that is unending.

The point of my original post in this thread is that the lack of any mooring in an objective moral code can be a characteristic of atheists that causes people to regard them with suspicion and distrust. There could be other reasons as well. It could be that some people conclude that atheists cannot conceive of anything greater than themselves, and are therefore untrustworthy because they are overly self-centered. Others have the view that there are no atheists, only people who profess to be atheist out of anger against God. One such view was expressed in the article linked in the OP. There are certainly multiple reasons that atheists are the most distrusted group, but one thing that we know is that it is not simply that atheists are the "other." Gays, Muslims, immigrants, etc. are also the "other" to the majority of Americans, and yet they are not distrusted to the degree atheists are. So it must be something else.

[Strong Atheist]

124. You still have not identified what an objective value

IS. I can tell tell you what a tree is. You can feel it, you can see it, you can smell it (you could even taste it!). It can be measured. WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT IT EXISTS, AND HAS CERTAIN PROPERTIES. Where are these so called "objective values" that we all agree on?

I am still eagerly awaiting you "unified objective value theory" that will get rid of all human confusion and strife on the values issue...

[Zebedeo]

173. An objective value is not a physical object like a tree.

It comes down to this: God's will is good. The opposite of God's will is evil. Determining God's will is not an exact science. It is a process that begins with a prayerful and earnest - AND HUMBLE - reading of God's Word. Until I became humble, I could not understand it either.

[Zhade]

129. You just argued FOR moral relativism.

That's quite a change from your earliest posts here. Actually, I think that's progress.

You may yet lose your fundamentalist bent! :toast:

[Zebedeo]

174. No, not moral relativism.

You are misunderstanding my position. I do not believe that any moral position is equivalent to any other moral position (moral relativism). Rather, I believe that the moral thing to do is often dependent on the circumstances.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Yeah, look out

you never now when one of us atheists is just going to pull out a 12-gauge and blow your fucking head off just because our lemonade was too bitter.

Give me a break.

This meme of yours is getting old. Stop perpetuating the stereotype that atheists have no morals. It gets a little :boring:

[Zebedeo]

84. It's not that atheists have no morals. I would never say that.

It's that many atheists seem to have no objective morals. Therefore, whatever morals they have are (1)entirely subjective; and (2)mysterious to the believer. That could result in distrust.

Imagine that Average Joe is considering entering into a business partnership with Allan. Joe finds out that Allan is an atheist. Joe doesn't know whether to trust Atheist Allan, because who knows what governs Allan's actions. Because Atheist Allan does not have an objective moral code to govern his actions, it is unknown whether Allan can be trusted. Maybe it turns out that Allan is extremely honest and trustworthy. Maybe not. There is no way to know, because Allan's actions are not regulated by any objective, immalleable set of principles.

I imagine that not all atheists would take the position that there is no such thing as objective morality. In that case, those atheists who do profess an objective, disclosed code of morality may not be subjected to the mistrust which is the subject of this thread.

[Proud_Democratt]

87. Objective morality equates to "I'm holier than thou"

Look at your example............ Imagine that Average Joe is considering entering into a business partnership with Allan. Joe finds out that Allan is an atheist. Joe doesn't know whether to trust Atheist Allan, because who knows what governs Allan's actions. Because Atheist Allan does not have an objective moral code to govern his actions, it is unknown whether Allan can be trusted.


Look at your example now..........Imagine that Average Joe is considering entering into a business partnership with Allan. Joe finds out that Allan is an Jewish. Joe doesn't know whether to trust Jewish Allan, because who knows what governs Allan's actions. Because Jewish Allan does not have an objective moral code to govern his actions, it is unknown whether Allan can be trusted.

I inserted the word Jewish, instead of Atheist.
Does it sound better now?

What does being an Atheists have to do with dishonesty or distrust???

[Zebedeo]

98. But Jews do have an objective moral code

The example doesn't make sense with the word "Jewish." Jews have the Torah and the 10 Commandments.

[Proud_Democratt]

99. The point I'm trying to make is...that nobody is above

immorality.

If you lived in an Atheist-based society, would you trust someone that seemed to be talking to an invisible person?

[Zebedeo]

100. It's more than just distrust of the "other"

is the point I am making. Distrust of the "other" does not explain why atheists are the most distrusted group. If that were the case, then a Christian would distrust a Jew, a Muslim, a Zorastrian and an atheist equally. But that is not the phenomenon we observe. There must be something else going on.

[Random_Australian]

92. Lemme put it like this. Allan is going into business partbership with Joe,

Allan finds out Joe is a Christian.

Allen doesn't know whether to trust Joe, because who knows what governs Joe's actions. Because Joe does not have an objective moral code to govern his actions, it is unknown whether Joe can be trusted. Maybe it turns out that Joe is extremely honest and trustworthy. Maybe not. There is no way to know, because Joe's actions are not regulated by any objective, immalleable set of principles.

Therefore equivalency, therefore equal individual validity, therefore judgement not based upon that property.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Goblinmonger]

113. Of course you will never SAY it

but you will imply it with everything you have and come within a fraction of an inch of saying it so that you can deny it when people call you one it. I'm on to that little game.

I'm really bad at this, so maybe Evoman will come by and do justice to this:

Imagine the Average Joe is going to open a new restaurant. Joe is a fantastic chef and everyone is sure people will love his restaurant. His lover, Bob, has given some money to get a building for the restaurant, but Joe needs more money to get equipment and have some working capital. Joe meets Allan who is quite rich and looking to be a silent partner in a new business. Problem is, Allan is a Christian. Joe is concerned because he knows that many Christians claim to have a clear objective moral standard delineated by the teachings of Christ, but Joe has seen the likes of those that fund the website godhatesfags.com. Joe is concerned that Allan cannot be trusted because he is a Christian and may abandon the objective moral standards of Christ to take part in that Christian hobby of gay bashing.

In short, give me a god damn break. When you can explain all the inherent contradictions in the teachings of Christianity and the bible, then we can talk about an "objective, immalleable set of principles." Until then, just stop it. Christian morals are no more objective than any other set of morals.

[Zebedeo]

116. Nah

I'm neither saying nor implying what you accuse me of. Instead, what is going on is that you prefer to do battle with a straw man of your own creation, rather than confront the actual theory I have advanced (or offer your own alternative competing theory).

Saying that Christianity provides no objective moral standards does not make it so. You seem to be unable to come to grips with the fact that your lack of objective moral standards makes people distrust you. Your defense mechanism is to project your lack of objective moral standards on others. Your "I'm rubber and you're glue" approach is inapplicable to this circumstance, because Christianity certainly offers objective moral rules. The fact that they are not always followed only means that Christians are not perfect; it does not mean that there are no objective moral standards in Christianity.

[riderinthestorm]

117. Several atheists on this thread have offered alternative theories

And you haven't addressed any of them: namely that we are subject to bigotry.

In general, most people haven't met an atheist, and their preconceptions are formed from ill-advised history texts whereby Stalin's crimes (for example) are ascribed to atheism instead of communism. Immoral crimes against humanity that should be assigned to a communist model are somehow assigned to atheism.

Many atheists do have "objective moral standards" ie. the Golden Rule, or the Noahide Laws, or some form of the Bagavid Gita, or whatever. What makes non-atheists uneasy is that they cannot stereotype atheists into some kind of pre-conceived ethical mold. Our objective moral standards aren't easily stereotyped thereby we are not able to be easily pigeonholed. Discomfort ensues.

Voila. Bigotry.

Atheists DO have moral standards. You know that right?

[Zebedeo]

121. Chalking it up to bigotry

is a monumental copout, IMHO. If it's bigotry at work, why are African Americans more trusted than atheists? Why are Muslims more trusted? Every minority group you can think of is more trusted than atheists. Do you honestly believe that bigotry is directed more at atheists than at any other group? Do you contend that atheists have some kind of exclusive status as the most put-upon, discriminated against, hated minority? That sounds like an awfully serious persecution complex.

Many atheists do have "objective moral standards" ie. the Golden Rule, or the Noahide Laws, or some form of the Bagavid Gita, or whatever.

Yes, that's right. Please see my post #84 in this thread, in which I said as much:

I imagine that not all atheists would take the position that there is no such thing as objective morality. In that case, those atheists who do profess an objective, disclosed code of morality may not be subjected to the mistrust which is the subject of this thread.

[riderinthestorm]

128. Most groups have spent their fair share of time at the bottom of

public opinion. With the current mood of theocracy in the US today, it makes sense that atheists are on the bottom rung.

And bigotry can take many forms; abuse, discrimination, or mistrust for example. Atheists may not be subject to physical beatings (akin to gays getting beat up) but obviously they are subject to mistrust. Are you really sure you want to posit that mistrust of a certain group is NOT bigotry?

Cause it is.

Lastly, I didn't make myself clear on my prior point re: an objective moral code. My point is that everyone's personal interpretation of a moral code is subjective regardless of what it is based upon, whether that person is a Christian or a Muslim or an atheist. I'm not sure why you think that anyone would "trust" a person who relies upon Satanic teachings as their "disclosed" moral code more than an atheist to take an extreme example. Regardless of it's base, a moral code is only as good as it's practitioner. And it doesn't take religion to make a person moral.

I don't believe that all it takes for a person to be trusted is to "disclose a moral code" regardless of what that moral code is. I believe an individual who stated that their moral code was based upon something out of someone else's (yours?) comfort zone, would be looked upon with as much distrust as an atheist.

I believe an atheist isn't trusted because they don't believe in God and people can't stereotype or place that person in their OWN moral scope.

[NMMNG]

131. Let's just use your line of reasoning on another group

in another setting.


13 states so far have amended their Constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Others are planning to do so this November. The federal government intends to make a second attempt to amend its Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

There must be something intrinsically wrong, something morally corrupt about gays. When in history have states en masse worked to amend their Constitutions in order to take rights away from a particular group of people? And would the federal government make not one but two attempts to amend its Constitution if these individuals weren't an insidious menace to the public? It is obvious from these actions that gays have inferior moral values.




Get real. Gays are not intrinsically immoral, nor are atheists. The problem lies with people who let their prejudices, particularly their religious prejudices, get in the way of rational thinking. The result is that decent people get treated unfairly for no good reason.

[trotsky]

126. Turning it right back at you.

Saying that Christians DOES provide objective moral standards does not make it so, either.

So there we are.

[Goblinmonger]

127. Do you even think ahead about what you say?

First you say this:

I'm neither saying nor implying what you accuse me of.

Which would be in reference to the "atheists have no moral standard" meme of yours. You are denying that right here.

Then you say this, not several sentences later:

You seem to be unable to come to grips with the fact that your lack of objective moral standards makes people distrust you.

So which is it. Do we have a set of moral standards that we follow or not?

Plus, you don't think it is bigotry to "distrust" an entire group of people just because they belong to the group? Think about it. What would you say if someone were to post "You seem to be unable to come to grips with the fact that your blackness makes people distrust you"? Nice, huh. Well you are doing the same thing.

So, riddle me this, Batman--if there is a clear Christian objective moral standard, what does that standard say about the following:
1. Homosexuality
2. War
3. Role of women in church
4. Role of women in society

Please give me the clear cut Christian moral standard for these. No waffling, no my interpretation of the bible is this, none of that. CLEAR CUT CHRISTIAN MORAL STANDARD.

[Zebedeo]

172. It all goes back to your post #81

in which you inaccurately accused me of contending that "atheists have no morals." I pointed out that I never said that atheists have no morals, but that many atheists proclaim that they have no OBJECTIVE morals. English teacher or no, you seem to have missed the distinction between a lack of morals and a lack of OBJECTIVE morals. I am assuming that as a distinguished poster on this forum, you would not have intentionally missed this distinction just to enable yourself to argue against a strawman; therefore your unintentional oversight is excusable, and I am more than happy to do you the service of pointing it out.

[Strong Atheist]

135. There are no "objective moral values".

because Allan's actions are not regulated by any objective, immalleable set of principles.

"immutable", like thou shalt not kill, right? Four "immutable words". Except in self defense, in the army (like during the revolution and the civil war), maybe assassinating Hitler, suicide rights, abortion for those who believe it is murder, the death penalty, euthanasia, mercy killings;

why the list of exceptions that MANY people would subscribe to for this "immutable objective value" is longer than the value itself...

and are you ever going to answer this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=72968&mesg_id=73876

because all I hear is crickets...

[riderinthestorm]

137. That's the point I was trying to make (badly)

You can take what someone may call an "objective" moral code but 1. it's interpretation is always going to be subjective which essentially renders the point moot, or 2. that "objective" moral code won't be deemed acceptable - which means we're back to the mistrusted part again.

And your point about the qualifiers to most objective moral codes - exactly right!

[immoderate]

152. An objective moral code...

An objective moral code would be one that's judged by the survival of the group that subscribes to it. In the case of humans, the moral code is the same for all groups. That's why humans survive. Religious groups co-opt the human moral code and attribute it to their divine being. It doesn't come from god, it comes from nature.

THE moral code, which is roughly the same for all human groups, is objective because it is wired into us as a result of natural selection.

--IMM

[Strong Atheist]

157. What "object moral code"? Ain't no such animal.

In the case of humans, the moral code is the same for all groups

THE moral code

Name it. People do not agree on ethics, unlike facts, because ethics are subjective, unlike facts.

Examples: No one (except lunatics) disagree about the color of the sun, or the existence of the earth, or what 2+2 equals, because these are all FACTS, and thus objective.

EVERYONE disagrees about whether the death penalty is ok, abortion is ok, suicide rights are ok, mercy killings are ok; because these are MATTERS OF TASTE, LIKE ALL MORALITY, and thus SUBJECTIVE.


Where are your "objective moral values" that EVERYONE agrees on? They don't exist....

[immoderate]

158. It's simple.

Don't kill, don't steal, respect the wishes of others, be nice. A society that doesn't respect these values won't survive. Natural law is as objective as you can get.

--IMM

[Strong Atheist]

159. The golden rule? I agree that it is a necessary

INVENTION to make societies function, otherwise there would be anarchy (which does not work in large groups), but there is nothing "objective" about it. It is not a factual connection between an action (like pulling a trigger) and it's consequence (someone dies); it is merely that MOST of us have agreed to make our personal taste a "law" by which society lives...

Example: Is pulling the trigger "wrong"? Not to kill Hitler, IMHO. Not to defend myself from someone trying to kill me. Not in other cases, as well...

[immoderate]

160. You are concentrating on the hard cases.

But basic morality is the same the world over. Even when cultures are very different (esthetics.) There is no conflict 99% of the time. Where there is, societies have "judges." This is also nearly universal. Even when personal preferences and taste comes into it, there are universal standards that most everyone recognizes. Who's prettier, Catherine Zeta Jones, or Mean Jeanne Schmidt? Is it a matter of taste, or a genetic, built-in standard?

Doing away with a "Hitler" and killing in self defense are also universal. A conflict arises with tribal sized groups, where an "us vs. them" sensibility takes over, but this is also normal.

--IMM

[Strong Atheist]

161. "But basic morality is the same the world over." Lol!

Not true at all! In various times and places slavery has (and still is, look up sex trades) an acceptable practice, government suppression is alive and well in China, North Korea, Iran, and many other places. Cannibalism has been practiced in many places and times, as well as human sacrifice. Genocide in Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Germany, and what Pol Pot did are just modern examples. I can dig up PLENTY of historical examples if you want. Wars are constant and never-ending.

Rape, murder, robbery, theft, arson ....., history is full of these things non-stop. Just read the papers in any country...

Heck, I can easily make the case that violence is more of a "normal" value than peace.

As for prettiness, that is subjective and cultural as well. In Europe a few hundred years ago, women were considered beautiful who had extra mass (better for child-bearing). Foot binding is considered Sexy in some places. Heck, it is obvious that beauty is subjective; there are fetish sites for every taste. Some people like tall, some like short. Some like thin, some like fat. Some like younger, some like older. Some like blonds, others like brunettes or redheads. There is obviously no "objective standard there either...

As for self defense, I seem to recall having heard various arguments about where I can have a gun, whether I can use lethal force on intruders etc. (heck, in some states you can get in trouble for defending yourself in your own home).

[immoderate]

162. Superficialities.

Warfare didn't appear until about 5000 years ago, when civilizations first organized into larger units than tribal groups. The morality there, including slavery, cannibalism, etc. conforms to the survival of the group. Again, these were not conscious choices, they were instinctive.

Interesting when you state the standard for child bearing is extra mass. In fact, in anthropology, the common number that comes up is hips that are 1.6 times wider than the waist. And child bearing is the issue, but it is not a conscious choice, it is an evolved, instinctive, preference. Even in art works where there was a chubbier preference, the ratio holds.

And human sacrifice, or other sacrifice, is a symbolic act that crops up in many societies. I say symbolic, because no tribe that sacrificed their entire population could hope to get ahead. Yes, there will be aberrations and diversions, but again, natural selection takes care of the most aberrant. Some of the trends you describe are keeping with this as say, a century ago, when what we would now think of overweight, was considered a sign of health and prosperity, and therefor seen as attractive. But this is all within limits, and it is not likely that skin eruptions, tumors, and other deformities will become attractive to any successful social group. And foot binding?! Have you taken a look at women's shoes? LOL. Some of the fetishes and other thing you describe are clearly aberrations, and a sign of human variability, but are not the mainstream of evolved behavior.

The evolution of morality through human history occurred within small groups and applied only to those withing the groups, and was quite consistent. It wasn't until large civil groups developed that the kinds of conflicts you cite were relevant. The problem is that the instinctive natural morality that I am describing is difficult to apply to the modern world because of the scales involved. Nevertheless it still exists.

So how many people do you think would say Jeanne Schmidt is more attractive than Catherine Zeta Jones? (Even though Catherine has a few pounds on Jeanne.)

--IMM

[Strong Atheist]

163. Unbelievable. "Instinctive natural morality."

Nothing "instinctive" about it. Children are selfish little sociopaths who have to be TAUGHT expected behavior, just like they have to be taught language (they are not born with either).

As for your ability to dismiss all the violence, wars, and disagreements about what is moral throughout human history (I just gave a FEW examples; there are MANY more); I notice that neither you nor Zebedeo has answered the meta-question: "If there are 'objective values', why do people disagree over abortion, the death penalty, etc?" We all agree that the sun is yellow, 2+2 = 4, and the earth is (more or less) spherical.

The answer is, people disagree because morality is a matter of taste, just like people disagree over what tastes good (another matter of taste). We have banded together into groups, and have arrived at the golden rule to keep society functioning, but it is a compromise that was INVENTED, and is hardly objective in the sense of being a fact that can be observed and measured, much less tied to whether any given action is "moral" or not.

[immoderate]

164. Altruism is a survival trait.

Behaviors like food sharing have been observed in higher evolved species and even in bats. If what you say is true, primitive humans would have become extinct in pre-history.

There is no comparison between what Zeb and I believe. He thinks objective means god-given, I think objective here means a product of evolution and natural selection.

Your arguments about death penalty and abortion are similarly flawed. The death penalty is common in primitive societies, and is invoked for the aberrant individual who would threaten the survival of the group. This is not arbitrary.

Abortion is only an issue in modern societies, because of the biological knowledge and technology involved, not to mention that in tribal cultures there would be little motivation to abort a pregnancy. And then malformed humans would not have been able to live anyway. The debate about abortion centers around the issue of whether the fetus is a person. No "pro-choicer" would characterize the fetus as an innocent unborn child. And similarly, no "pro-lifer" would describe a fetus as an undifferentiated mass of cells. Both are ironically claiming to adhere to the same principle, that of not extinguishing human beings. How much more objective can you get?

You can point out many conundrums in a modern society that has only existed for 3-5000 years. The sense of morality that I am describing evolves with the species, and spans the million or so years since food gathering groups became tribal bands. It is very clear how you treat someone who is known to you and a member of your group. The dilemmas and frustrations that you are pointing to are recent developments in human history. That does not discount the fact that we are possessed of a natural, objective, manner of behavior toward members of our family and friends in our inner circle.

BTW, this is not something I made up, it is prevalent in writings of Darwin, Dawkins, and Shermer, to name a few. Note: this is not a fallacious appeal to authority, since these people are recognized authorities on this particular issue.

--IMM

[Strong Atheist]

165. "Your arguments about death penalty and abortion

are similarly flawed. The death penalty is common in primitive societies, and is invoked for the aberrant individual who would threaten the survival of the group. This is not arbitrary.

The point is, people DISAGREE strongly about MORAL issues. Get 100 random people anywhere and ask them about ISSUES LIKE abortion, the death penalty, self defense, suicide rights, euthanasia, when is it ok to steal (is it ok to steal to feed yourself, family, friends, strangers; is it ok to steal medicne you need that is too expensive, is Robin hood redistribution stealing or ok, etc), and you will get VAST disagreement. You think issues of death and stealing are new? People have disagreed over these things for recorded history, and therefore it seems a sure bet that they disagreed in PREHISTORY. I doubt seriously that prehistoric times were the idyllic "everyone agrees on moral issues" that you seem to be espousing with your two posts saying that moral problems only occurred recently.

Yet STRANGELY ENOUGH people do NOT disagree about facts, like what color the sun is or what 2+2 equals. Why is that, I wonder? :eyes: It is because moral statements are not facts, but merely emoting. It is like if I say

"Ice cream is good."

Then you say

"No it isn't!"

and I say

"YES IT IS!!!!"

and you respond:

"NO, IT ISN'T!!!"

and we keep disagreeing and getting more shrill. You CAN'T resolve differences in taste, because they are subjective. The reason people can not resolve differences in morality is because they are also SUBJECTIVE, and therefore not subject to factual verification, just like (in fact, EXACTLY like) matters of taste. Morality = a matter of taste.

Show me these "objective moral facts" (with specific examples, please) that we all agree on. Explain (as I have) why we disagree about such things, but we don't about whether the sun is yellow, or 2+2 = 4?

[immoderate]

166. All the issues you are bringing up...

are only concepts that occurred within the last eye blink of the history of human existence. Things like property, which is necessary to have thievery, did not exist in pre-agrarian human societies, negating the need for rules about stealing. I'm talking about millions of years of human development during which basic behaviors toward other human beings developed that were not matters of taste. In fact, we share many of these behaviors with other primates. Even dogs have reactions that indicate that they are subject to some notion of what is acceptable or forbidden. This is what I am calling objective morality, because nobody arbitrarily made it up. If you say this doesn't exist, so be it.

We do not need to be schooled in how to behave toward our immediate family and local group. It's part of our instinctive nurturance. Almost all mammalian, and some other species, have ingrained behaviors of what it is to be "good parents." The issues arise when it comes to applying this innate system of behaviors to modern developments. Stealing, euthanasia, abortion, election fraud, and the like are all problems of modern life and the question for us is how to integrate them into the innate sense of right and wrong that permeates our entire species. Show me a society where stealing from each other is considered a virtue. That is not a matter of taste, which is subject to variability and collective whim. Everybody knows it's wrong to steal, lie, cheat, hurt. This is a different matter than wearing stripes with plaids, or declaring which is the best hairdo, or the best flavor of ice cream. The reason people disagree on issues of morality is because novel problems have to be interpreted in light of our innate sense of what is right or wrong. But again, this is all a relatively recent phenomenon.

Edit to add: The depth of right and wrong as an evolutionary phenomenon is born out by basic chemical reactions in our systems that accompany our behaviors, as the release of oxytocin when performing acts of kindness.

We have disagreed on things before. Mostly it was a matter of terminology and not concepts. In this case I am stating that determination of right and wrong is not arbitrary, and has implications for the survival of individuals and social structures. You can disagree with that and we can still be friends.

--IMM

[Strong Atheist]

167. "You can disagree with that and we can still be friends." Ok.

One last example.

:hide:

Bribery is (or was) excepted as a normal way of doing business in some entire COUNTRIES at one point (Mexico, at least it used to ...) but many people think that is not a good thing. I think that many people disagree over big ethical issues like abortion and the death penalty because there are no objective values that values are subjective (See J.L. Mackie, Inventing Right And Wrong), but, since you were so conciliatory, I am willing to drop the whole thing, and let you have the last word.

You are right, we can still be friends.:toast:

[immoderate]

168. We're on the same side in most issues.

But allow me to point out, that while bribery is a way of doing business in many countries, it is still illegal in those countries. And it's done in secret, not out in the open. They know they're doing something wrong. And again, it's done to people outside your local group, not to your friends and family.

Back at you.:hi: :toast:

--IMM

[SPKrazy]

59. Probably Most Don't Understand Atheism

lack of understanding creates fear and fear breeds distrust

I think that a lot of people have this idea that atheists are all hedonistic, sex crazed, drug addicted, arrogant, people.

In reality atheists are as diverse as the rest of the population. Just as some religious people are hedonistic in reality, or sex crazed, addicted, arrogant, there are some atheists that are too.

But the norm is like it is anywhere else I think, atheists are just people.

To trust them, is to trust people.

Probably comes from fundies as most bad things do.

[Proud_Democratt]

96. Probably Most Don't Understand Atheism??

It's very easy, we.....do....not.....believe.......in.......any......gods.

[SPKrazy]

119. Ya Know, If You'd Read My Post

maybe you wouldn't have just responded sarcastically!


I thought I was trying to give some input as to how some people think

but I guess that wasn't what you wanted?:shrug:

So, yeah, everyone should just accept that you don't believe in God and leave it at that.

But, it obviously isn't happening and I tried to posit some ideas about why.

Won't let it happen again!

[Proud_Democratt]

134. Sorry...about being sarcastic and jumping the gun. I guess I

I was really worked up about this.......

http://www.truechristian.com/atheists.html

[bloom]

138. That's a really good example

of having a contrived argument against anyone who is religious or tolerates religion by pointing to some extremist, fundamentalist nut.


I think people on DU should avoid such nonsense if they wish to have reasonable discussions.

It wouldn't be any different than if a Christian found a site by some crazy atheist (surely there is some somewhere) and suggested that all atheists were just like that.

Or esp. if such a person made the argument that having been to that site was an excuse to be rude to atheists. I don't think that you would think that was reasonable at all.

[charlie]

139. The site is a satire anyway

Bad example.

[bloom]

140. It seemed like it had to be.

Though satirical sites work better when they are more obviously satirical. Otherwise - they can be just as stupid as the thing they are satirizing. Promote the same nonsense, etc.

[Proud_Democratt]

141. Is it listed as a spoof, hoax, or satire site?

I looked at many lists of such... and cannot find this site listed.

[charlie]

144. No, not that I know of

But Pastor Jim is a cartoon. Every page is larded with 6-year-old looniness like this stuff from the atheism page linked above:

Everyone including atheists know the Christian god, God is real. We know he is real since we call him God with a capital "G" -- that proves it right there.

Firstly, I don't like how atheists use those words. They capitalize Logic and Reason since that's the lies they worship. We use God and Truth since they are things we posses and we prove this by using capital letters. Atheists who do the same thing are mocking Christianity.

If you EVER make any friendly contact with an atheist, you will go STRAIGHT to Hell. Jesus will NEVER receive you, you fools. GOD HATES ATHEISTS WITH ALL HIS LOVE!

Satan planted them in schools and things to make atheists look smart and appealing when the truth is they are all communists who wallow in their own vomit and lick the rectums of dogs. Since that's all atheists are, filthy stinky homosexuals who hate everyone. They should all die, as God orders us to kill them all.

(Note: Sabbath is the Sunday of each week you must attend Christian Church. Any dictionary will give you this definition). So if you miss a Sunday of Church you are to be killed since you are a filthy atheist then.)

Back in the day we would hang them, set them on fire, poison them, enslave them, or just FORCE them to convert by threatening to kill their young. We do all of this in Love. We are Christians, and Love is our main goal.

America is a theocracy and the proof of this since the word God is on our money and pledge. They will never take these away from us since God is an American.

Not only is America Under God, but God himself is a citizen of the United States. We know this since we are Under Him. Jesus to was also an American.

Jesus WASN'T Italian or French or British or Thai or a Metrosexual, NO He was American. THAT'S WHY AMERICA IS UNDER GOD!!!

Why SUVs are Christian:

TRUE FACTS THAT ARE TRUE SINCE WE USED THE WORD TRUE WHICH MAKES THEM TRUE SINCE THEY ARE FACTS WHICH MEANS THEY ARE TRUE

~Emits air which makes trees and plants grow more plentifully. This ensures healthy people and a higher chance of being smart enough to become a Christian.

~Is huge and powerful. Anything that gets in its way will be destroyed without remorse or regret and those inside will stay unaware of what has happened but laugh and be happy as they go on.

~Can drive up mountains, over forests, knock down trees, hold two flags on each side and one flag in the back and one on the antenna and two in the rear windows with another on the children's side window and one on the dash board with three glued onto the room with five stapled to the fold out chairs, and can drive on water, and can go fast, and is so tall it can see over everything. It also shows how big your genitals are.

~Runs over Evil such as witches, Catholics, Fags, atheists, pagans, Muslims, pacifists, niggers, and communists MAKING THEM DEAD!!! HAHAHAHA!!!

http://www.truechristian.com/08.html

Look at this Bible Code/Numerology nuttery:

http://www.truechristian.com/proofwearecorrect.html

The abortion videos are "look at the religious retards" ambush interviews from maggotpunks.com:

http://www.truechristian.com/avideos.html

Look at this Kids' page if you have any remaining doubts (don't click if you're at work):

http://www.truechristian.com/kidzshechem.html

Meet the author:

http://www.myspace.com/truechristiandotcom

[Proud_Democratt]

145. I've been searching many lists of hoax or

satire religious sites. Truechristian.com does not show up on any lists.:shrug:

[charlie]

146. Probably never made a big enough splash

to be noticed by the lists you're looking at. There was a Fundie Science Fair report put up by the guys who do Landover Baptist a while ago. That thing was really good, had everyone wound up with either incredulity or uncertainty. It wasn't "officially" debunked by hoax sites either.

[Proud_Democratt]

147. Also, consider godhatesfags.com.

This is not a hoax site. It's the homepage for Westboro Baptist, Rev. Fred Phelps's church.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/

[charlie]

148. Did you follow the links?

Phelps' has a congruity in his wingnuttery and a semblance of rational argument-building. The truechristian guy often forgets his purpose and just splatters his "look at me, I'm a religious Bozo!" ideas with gleeful abandon, nevermind that it's out of character and reason with stuff elsewhere. Look at the Kids' page above (or watch an abortion video) and see what you think.

[Proud_Democratt]

149. I looked at the Kid's Page and Abortion video

a couple days ago. I want to say it's all satire....but...I just don't know. I wish it was a hoax/parody. Maybe they want it to APPEAR as satire?

[charlie]

150. Go into that hall of mirrors

and you might not find your way out. If it's made to appear as satire, it's done to what purpose? So no one will take the author's true beliefs seriously?

[Proud_Democratt]

151. I don't know. I've visited many, many satire sites....but this one,

I can't get it out of my mind.

[beam me up scottie]

154. It is a spoof site.

We've already tried to tell you that several times.

Why must it be on a list for it to be a spoof?

[Proud_Democratt]

156. I'm just not convinced, that's all.

The Westboro Baptist site(godhatesfags.com) is listed under hategroups...and it's unbelievably satiric. I feel truechristian.com may qualify as a hate site rather than a satire site.:)

[Proud_Democratt]

142. That reply was to southpawkicker....

Are you his spokesperson?

[Proud_Democratt]

143. And you're an authority on forum commenting? Did it occur

to you that not all of us think the same. What might be a compliment to you, may be an insult to another.
And take into account, I apologized to southpawkicker for my reply. My apology to him is NOT at YOUR discretion.

[beam me up scottie]

155. Speaking of good examples,

let's just turn your straw man around.

That's a really good example of having a contrived argument against anyone who is an atheist or tolerates atheism by pointing to some extremist, fundamentalist nut.

You constantly malign DU atheists because of some imaginary vendetta you have against us.


Oh, look here!

I just received an email from Melinda Barton and Raw Story.

They want to thank you for consistently pointing out what you believe to be intolerant behaviour by atheists, while ignoring or supporting the intolerance against atheists by some of the christian posters in this forum.

"Liberals" like you are the atheistic version of Log Cabin Republicans.

[SPKrazy]

175. The "Store" Convinces Me It Is A Satirical Site

from the store

[NMMNG]

122. Southpawkicker has a point

Just from interactions with people on DU it is apparent that many people don't understand atheism. Those of us who are atheists have spent many frustrating hours explaining the difference between "I believe there are no god(s)" and "I don't believe in god(s)" (and some people still don't get it, or don't want to). There are those who assume that atheists are satanists, and we have to explain that atheism means we also don't believe in satan so we obviously don't worship him. Some insist that we know god(s) exist, but we just reject them out of spite. And so on, and so on. The misconceptions abound.

[sutz12]

74. Nice to know.....

don't trust anyone who approaches problems and situations with rational, concrete opinions and means.

Nope, trust those guys with imaginary friends that listen to the voices in their heads.

:rofl:

[lvx35]

103. Its because atheism is percieved as antagonistic.

Try asking people what they think of "those who trust in scientific reason" and you'll see good numbers...Its the difference between hating meat and enjoying salads.

[Dorian Gray]

107. Well this is

very sad. I don't know why people would feel an inherent distrust for any particular grouping of people, though this type of prejudice seems to be ingrained into human beings.

[Deja Q]

171. Regardless of sect, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

You will ultimately find humanity to be a mess of spurious morality and double-standards.

Anyone who freely gives his life to benefit others must be one fuckin' fool.