Seriously? Rapists are trusted as much or more than Atheists?

[gbear]

Wow. I will look with a different light on those who claim their religion is discriminated against in the U.S. I know how our population, myself included, thinks of rapists. I have always felt this a rather justified view point. As an agnostic, a distinction I find less than half of the people I talk to understand, I find this sad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-atheists-distrusted-as-much-as-rapists/2011/12/09/gIQAfYUiiO_story.html?hpid=z3

Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists

A new study finds that atheists are among society’s most distrusted group, comparable even to rapists in certain circumstances.

Psychologists at the University of British Columbia and the University of Oregon say that their study demonstrates that anti-atheist prejudice stems from moral distrust, not dislike, of nonbelievers. more at link

[No Excuses]

Not a problem for me. I don't need to be trusted by religious bigots. Luckily my profession and social circle is free from stupidity that stems from religious belief.

[Bang]

Ignorance and religion.. hand in hand again.

~Bang

[Destino]

A driver damages a parked car and leaves the scene. Later that same driver finds a wallet and takes the money. Which of the following would most likely describe the driver:

A) teacher,

Atheist teacher

C) rapist teacher

That's essentially the question asked in this "study". You really want to argue that this proves religious people view atheists morally on par with rapists? I find the question absurd. First of all rapists are a tiny portion of the population so I would find that response the least likely of the three. You going to argue that I trust teachers less than rapists based on that?

I question the judgement of those that feel it's appropriate to slam people from an entire religious/non religious background casually.

[Chicken Fried]

I'm not even offended anymore by comments on ES because I've found it's not worth my time or energy. I'm only saying this for your benefit, Vishal and Bang, but whatever your intentions are, both of your comments come across as very narrow-minded and, to use Bang's word, ignorant. You get angry for people not understanding your beliefs, or lack thereof. Well, take a step back and view it from a believer's perspective when you say things like that. Do you not provide justification for believers to get angry because y'all come across as not understanding their point of view? You're embodying the very things you criticize about religious believers. Comments like those you have just posted are the very reason, right or wrong, that Christians often are wary of atheists and agnostics. If you believe there should be mutual respect between believers and non-believers, show it.

[No Excuses]

First of all rapists are a tiny portion of the population so I would find that response the least likely of the three..

I would guess that an underlying assumption of the question is that you don't take population numbers into account. You are simply given the likelihood that if it were between these three existing people, which one would you most likely think was the perpetrator?

Poorly worded question though, or perhaps the WP article did a bad job of detailing the study and chose to right a sensationalist piece.

Still doesn't change the fact that atheists do get discriminated against.

Aranksas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

That is just one state of several others that still openly discriminates against atheists.

I don't have to make blanket statements to slam religious bigots. Some are doing a good job of that without help from high minded wonderful people.

[Destino]

I would guess that an underlying assumption of the question is that you don't take population numbers into account. You are simply given the likelihood that if it were between these three existing people, which one would you most likely accuse?

That's not my assumption at all. Whenever the word "likely" appears my mind immediately jumps to numbers. I also think the question is insulting because it negatively associates atheism.

Still doesn't change the fact that atheists do get discriminated.

Aranksas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1

Yup. Most religious views are discriminated against somewhere. It's been that way as long as there have been views on the religious topic. I don't support that at all and would have no problem with an atheist in government. The individuals that put that into law are responsible for that and in the course of doing so spreading disharmony and promoting discrimination.

I don't have to make blanket statements to slam religious bigots. Some are doing a good job of that without help from high minded wonderful people.

Good to know that you don't "have to" though if you have bigoted beliefs you should work on ridding yourself of them instead of just censoring your own speech.

[btfoom]

A driver damages a parked car and leaves the scene. Later that same driver finds a wallet and takes the money. Which of the following would most likely describe the driver:

A) teacher,

Atheist teacher

C) rapist teacher

That's essentially the question asked in this "study". You really want to argue that this proves religious people view atheists morally on par with rapists? I find the question absurd. First of all rapists are a tiny portion of the population so I would find that response the least likely of the three. You going to argue that I trust teachers less than rapists based on that?

I question the judgement of those that feel it's appropriate to slam people from an entire religious/non religious background casually.

First, why is teacher in there? Do we just assume that teachers will do this.

Another great example of a 'study' that shows absolutely nothing. Like Destino said, rapists are such a small portion of our society and teachers go through background checks and anyone convicted of a sex crime are not allowed to teach, so the chances of being a rapist and teacher are extremely small. That leaves teacher vs atheist teacher. There needs to be more choices, or at least a similar study where you have teacher, christian teacher, rapist teacher, and see if the results are the same.

This article is proof positive that there are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.

[No Excuses]

Good to know that you don't "have to" though if you have bigoted beliefs you should work on ridding yourself of them instead of just censoring your own speech.

It is bigotry to slam those who purposely try to deny you civil rights and would have no problem making you a second class citizen?

To pretend that there aren't people among religious groups who still have backwards and discriminatory beliefs towards atheists (or even other religious groups) is laughable. If calling them out is 'bigotry' itself, then so be it.

EDIT: what I'm saying has nothing to do with this study. The question is weird, or WP didn't explain the premises well enough.

[SuperBash]

This study basically implies that Atheists don't have morals? I know right from wrong and can take away certain lessons from the bible, but I just don't believe there is some higher being overseeing all of us.

[Drew_Fl]

People are blaiming the religious people for all the ignorance here, but the article explicitly states that the bias was found even among the non-religious also. The study was only 400 people large, and I"m assuming the participants weren't quite random so they could generate a controversial article to get clicks and sell ads.

Don't believe everything you read.

[Destino]

It is bigotry to slam those who purposely try to deny you civil rights and would have no problem making you a second class citizen?

To pretend that there aren't people among religious groups who still have backwards and discriminatory beliefs towards atheists (or even other religious groups) is laughable. If calling them out is 'bigotry' itself, then so be it.

Where have I pretended there aren't people in religious groups that have discriminatory beliefs towards atheists? There are people in every religious group that have discriminatory beliefs towards anyone that thinks differently than they do. I'm convinced that if we eliminated every difference man has from his fellow man other than two colors of shirts... that choice would justify injustices eventually.

[No Excuses]

Where have I pretended there aren't people in religious groups that have discriminatory beliefs towards atheists? There are people in every religious group that have discriminatory beliefs towards anyone that thinks differently than they do. I'm convinced that if we eliminated every difference man has from his fellow man other than two colors of shirts... that choice would justify injustices eventually.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

The study is odd, but I think the general premise isn't that far fetched. People do not view atheists to be as morally corrupt as rapists, but as it stands, there are good portions of this country where atheists are still not trusted and this directly bleeds into public policy leading to civil discrimination. Why this happens is because of whatever twisted religious belief they chose to have. Does this mean I'm blanketing all religious people as stupid and ignorant? Absolutely not. However, for some, religion does go hand in hand with stupidity and ignorance (which can occasionally be dangerous). The problem is that it isn't rare in this country for the ignorant to hold public office and then use their religious beliefs to openly discriminate.

[Runs with Scissors]

I've been an atheist 15 years or so now.People still assume I'm a christian whenever I help someone or give to a charity.

I've stopped correcting them lately,the blank stare you get is kinda awkward.

[Destino]

Sorry if I misunderstood.

The study is odd, but I think the general premise isn't that far fetched. People do not view atheists to be as morally corrupt as rapists, but as it stands, there are good portions of this country where atheists are still not trusted and this directly bleeds into public policy leading to civil discrimination. Why this happens is because of whatever twisted religious belief they chose to have. Does this mean I'm blanketing all religious people as stupid and ignorant? Absolutely not. However, for some, religion does go hand in hand with stupidity and ignorance (which can occasionally be dangerous). The problem is that it isn't rare in this country for the ignorant to hold public office and then use their religious beliefs to openly discriminate.

It happens because people are too quick to distrust and believe the worst about those that aren't like them. I think the leaders that direct these groups have a great share of the responsibility.

[z0eboy]

I've been an atheist 15 years or so now.People still assume I'm a christian whenever I help someone or give to a charity.

I've stopped correcting them lately,the blank stare you get is kinda awkward.

I get the same reaction, it's as if anyone who isn't christian must worship the devil or something.

One girl actually said "if I don't live through Christ he will take my breath away..."

here I am thinking does this girl want me dead or something?!?!

[Jumbo]

So are we going to have another demographically based topic devolve into another tailgate "your *******s are more assholio than our *******s" debate with examples being acted out and proving yet again, that being an ******* is being an ******* and the resume' data is secondary?

Me...I have never noted any solid correlation, personally or professionally, between the level of any chartacter trait, "bad", "good" or "anywhere in-between" and whether one is a "believer" or "non-believer" in the God of any religion. It's pretty damn random.

Now my personal outlook and experience, having spent most of my life as an agnostic as the closest pigeonhole i can fit into among the main three (atheist, agnostic, believer) as commonly defined by most folk, is/has been this:

I have experienced far more negative regard and even treatment (nothing seriously harmful ever) for my views than I have EVER projected to them for thiers, and that's by a landslide, and over four decades and many locations. But I am a strong person in every way and it's been mostly verbal and attitudinal, and I don't see it's seriously obstructed me from personal or professional success. I just note it and don't claim to suffer from it even if I think it's sad. At worst, it gets to me sometimes on principle and it can be socially restricting (as it is in the small community I am temporarily residing).

I sure am grateful for the components of this society that advocate honoring basic time-tested principles of positive worth over blind dogma or labeled ideologies, and protects minorities, and that those protective forces are as strong as they are. I hope that never changes.

Though an agnostic, I hold a mainly positive attitude towards most religions and their followers. I see mainly good things in them for we humans, at least at this time in our development as a species, even while noting the negatives that are meaingfully and more directly attached to their belief systems, historically or current.

The thing is, most common, or fundamental, human behaviors ("positive" and "negative" values as however assigned) over-ride almost all sociological-based demogragphic distinctions in almost all cases, including the famous "race, religion, or ethnicity" ones, more than not.

That what makes them fundamental human behaviors, found everywhere there are people over time, place, and culture. Durrr.

It is easily arguable that in our culture, the agnostic/atheist group is relatively unpopular and often (not always) in a comparatively "down" position in terms of social status and influence, than are mainstream religion believers as a group(s).

And I am a believer in holding anyones feet to the fire for their behavior when appropriate, no matter how they lable themselves.

[LadySkinsFan]

I'll bet that if one asked Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry if atheists had moral values, you'd get a "no". Thank goodness they are only pandering to their limited base.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This is one dumb-ass "study" asking an even dumber-ass question ...I honestly can't believe the WP posted an article about it, to be honest.

How anyone, anywhere, could draw anything from this is beyond me. If I were an atheist I'd be more pissed off at the people who put the study together than I would at the respondents.

---------- Post added December-10th-2011 at 02:57 PM ----------

Shariff, who studies atheism and religion, said the findings provide a clue to combating anti-atheism prejudice.

“If you manage to offer credible counteroffers of these stereotypes, this can do a lot to undermine people’s existing prejudice,” he said. “If you realize there are all these atheists you’ve been interacting with all your life and they haven’t raped your children that is going to do a lot do dispel these stereotypes.”

:ols:

[Jumbo]

This is one dumb-ass "study" asking an even dumber-ass question ...I honestly can't believe the WP posted an article about it, to be honest.

Another credibility-building trait of WaPo I've noticed is that when they cite a study as a basis for a piece, it tends to be of the half-assed (or worse) level of application and execution. It seems obvious they go for a shallow "hook" more than any deeper substance to get the reactionary set involved most of the time. Maybe the paper really is dedicated to reaching more and more for the tabloid market for its economic viabiltiy.

[SWFLSkins]

Not a problem for me. I don't need to be trusted by religious bigots. Luckily my profession and social circle is free from stupidity that stems from religious belief.

Ignorance and religion.. hand in hand again.

~Bang

Organized Religion like Military Intelligence. I and High.

[twa]

I'll bet that if one asked Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry if atheists had moral values, you'd get a "no". Thank goodness they are only pandering to their limited base.

Defining moral is a touchy subject, but Perry willingly employs atheists and gays,so I guess there is no morality clause in his political hiring .

News @ 5 Perry hires the immoral ,sellouts outed:pfft:

I is offended

no word yet on ratio of the godless to rapist hires,but TP has a team looking into allegations

[Birdlives]

University studies, on the whole are complete BS mostly created to get press for Universities to collect more $$ so they can stay afloat.

[Jumbo]

University studies, on the whole are complete BS mostly created to get press for Universities to collect more $$ so they can stay afloat.

Ladies and gentlemen, already noted questionable nature of the topic study aside, I give you the "official ES inane sweeping generality of the week " :pfft:

And it's always fun to have given at least a modicum of serious thought in making a post in a thread you know is likely to be a potpourri of typical tailgate nonsense by nature of the topic

I take full responsibility for my poor choices

[The Sisko]

I've been an atheist 15 years or so now.People still assume I'm a christian whenever I help someone or give to a charity.

I've stopped correcting them lately,the blank stare you get is kinda awkward.

I rather enjoy that blank stare actually. OTOH I'm totally "in the closet" about it at work. Being an agnostic in the Bible Belt is hard enough. Being a Black agnostic in the Bible Belt can really suck sometimes.

From personal experience I don't know that there's any major hostility towards us non-believers but there's definitely a bias. Just look at how many Christians say they wouldn't vote for Romney under any circumstances and he's just a Mormon. I can only imagine what the numbers would be for a Muslim or a non-believer.

As for the study, if that's really their set of questions I can only say "WTF??" If you think about it, the only logical answer would have to be "None of the above" because there's simply not enough information given to reasonably come to any of those three conclusions.

---------- Post added December-10th-2011 at 07:51 PM ----------

Ladies and gentlemen, already noted questionable nature of the topic study aside, I give you the "official ES inane sweeping generality of the week " :pfft:

His vote for the Perry/Bachman ticket has already been tallied.