Atheists roughly as distrusted as rapists, UBC study finds

[Tonington]

Looks like a skewed survey. Note they the people who were polled were mostly American Christians; hardly a group known for its open-mindedness toward anyone who thinks or acts differently from what it considers the norm. If the same sort of people were selected in the UBC study, then the study completely lacks credibility. Tell you what - let's have a study showing how atheists rate fundamentalist Christians; somehow I don't think the results would be much different.

In the first study they had 351 participants, the composition was 59% female, and the breakdown of reported religious affiliation was 67% Christian, 1% Jewish, 3% Athiest, 4% Agnostic, 17% None, and 9% Other. Of all participants, 14% answered 'No' to belief in God.

That's not too far off from what most surveys find for prevalence in America, generally Christianity makes up 59.9 to 76.0%, unaffiliated, which includes atheists and agnostics is about 15.0 to 37.3%, and Judaism 1.2 to 2.2%.

The second study was of undergraduate students at UBC, who complete surveys in the Psychology Human Subject Pool for extra credit. There were responses from 1,153 students, for studies 2-6. The demographic information for this group was reported as:

In terms of religious backgrounds, this is a very diverse group of
students. In descending order of frequency, our participants report
religious affiliations as Christian (34%), None (16%), Nonreligious
(12%), Agnostic (11%), Atheist (9%), Other (7%), Buddhist
(7%), Muslim (3%), and Jewish (1%).
This is also an ethnically heterogenous population from which
to sample: East Asian (49%), Caucasian/White (30%), Other/
mixed (7%), South Asian (6%), Southeast Asian (4%), Middle
Eastern (2%), Hispanic/Latino (1%), and African (<1%).

Here's the whole paper from Gervais' faculty webpage :
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

 

[mentalfloss]

Would this have some validity, due to the fact that what we have in the way of codified conduct, is loosely based on centuries of life lessons from one deity or another?

In all likelihood, whatever we find moral, right or wrong, has a basis in religion.

So to be a true atheist, wouldn't you have to live outside what normal/common moral context is?

This string of logic is exactly why theists misrepresent atheists. They still haven't grasped the fact that you don't need to derive moral value from a supernatural being.

 

[darkbeaver]

This string of logic is exactly why theists misrepresent atheists. They still haven't grasped the fact that you don't need to derive moral value from a supernatural being.

God is nature.

I'll check 'toys R us' next time i'm in nanaimo

A few little stone idols in the garden. What could be the harm? There are garden gods and spirits aplenty.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

 

[petros]

My morals are based on a stick system.

If the stick hits your ass you did bad, if no stick, you did good.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

In all likelihood, whatever we find moral, right or wrong, has a basis in religion.

Other way around, I'd say. Religious justifications for morality are after the fact rationalizations of pre-existing conditions.

 

[mentalfloss]

Other way around, I'd say. Religious justifications for morality are after the fact rationalizations of pre-existing conditions.

Right.

Morality is part of the human condition.

 

[Spade]

The ruling elites of all societies have used religion to control the masses. They fear knowledge will lead to chaos. However, morality is independent of the gods - it is a realization that certain behaviours are required for social well-being. It's an evolutiuonary code derived through observation of what works for our mutual benefit.
PS
The "moral" man acts not through fear of the gods but through love of his fellow man.

 

[Nuggler]

Too funny. A whole lot of Christian leaders and politicians have been caught with their pants down, with their hands in the cookie jar and otherwise being untrustworthy yet they single out atheists. Perhaps a little deflection going on, me thinks.

A whole bunch of goalies in training.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well it's all useful information, but on some level I think I've always known it. Knowing that I'd be distrusted to that degree tends to make me pretty circumspect about who I reveal my views to in real life, but it's not a subject that comes up a lot in casual conversation. Unless I explicitly state otherwise, most people tend to assume I believe at least approximately what they do, if they think about it at all. Generally, somebody has to say something egregiously stupid before I'll join battle with them, and usually not even then. At somebody else's house I won't start it, the hosts can do that if they're so inclined and then I'll join in, nor do I bother to challenge my deeply devout 92-year old mother-in-law, that's just a waste of time and would cause more strife than it's worth. But people who come to my door trying to peddle their mythology, and people who make outrageous claims on public message boards, they're fair game. I've never started a thread here challenging religious beliefs, but I've certainly responded to lots of other peoples' religious claims and observations, because they interest me. But not all of them.

 

[Goober]

I used to hang out at the UBC Campus when I was banging the pastors Daughter. I didn't really have anything relevant to add, but felt that sharing that tidbit might give the group the impression that I added something to the discussion on this study which sounds like it was a collosal wast of money.

Really huge numbers and what was the methodology. So when you were banging her, it was a little bit of heaven, Right.

 

[darkbeaver]

The ancients spent many thousands of years formulating intellectual pursuits to sharpen and augment greater familiarity with the eternal.
The entire point of religion was just that and nothing else, a mapping of the collective conscience of man to assist the embodied spirit to eventually overcome the limitations of flesh in its voyage across the living state. The purpose of life is greater and greater awareness. We are all food tasters for god. IMPO constantly subject to change

 

[Corduroy]

When people apply the descriptor "militant" to members of an ideological community, militant Christian, militant Muslim or militant Hindu is always used for people of that community willing to use violence and murder to advance their beliefs. But when applied to atheists "militant atheist" refers to people like Richard Dawkins, a scrawny British scientist whose only weapon is his shrill voice.

Maybe it's the distrust thing.

 

[darkbeaver]

Part of the reason I left the Atheist Church was perverted priests like Dawkins.

 

[Spade]

We're all atheists. Cliify does not believe in Athena. Others, I'm sure, don't believe in Thor (Shame!) We all pick the gods to disbelieve in.

 

[Cliffy]

We're all atheists. Cliify does not believe in Athena. Others, I'm sure, don't believe in Thor (Shame!) We all pick the gods to disbelieve in.

Actually, I would give more credit to the old gods than to the biblical tyrant. From what I hear Athena was some hot tamale. Anyone who endorses love is OK in my books.

 

[WLDB]

Actually, I would give more credit to the old gods than to the biblical tyrant. From what I hear Athena was some hot tamale. Anyone who endorses love is OK in my books.

Dionysus is the one true God.

 

[CDNBear]

This string of logic is exactly why theists misrepresent atheists. They still haven't grasped the fact that you don't need to derive moral value from a supernatural being.

So I've heard.

Maybe that would explain why I can't just club you and take your stuff than.

Oh wait, my version of "God" says for me to get into the Great Hunting Grounds, I should make war, rape, pillage, take slaves and eat meat.

How's that for a set of morals derived from a supernatural being? Better dip that roller back in the paint tray.

Other way around, I'd say. Religious justifications for morality are after the fact rationalizations of pre-existing conditions.

I disagree. There are many moral codes that could have, or did, evolve simply from observing the effects of an act. But what formulated the feeling that it was either right or wrong?

db brings up a good point. Unwittingly I'm sure...

God is nature.

Naturally, nature says might makes right, the strong and healthy take advantage of the weak and/or sick. This was so, even up to biblical times and beyond in some sectors.

What moral code says I shouldn't be allowed to go thump my neighbour and take his things?

 

[Spade]

Bear asks, "What moral code says I shouldn't be allowed to go thump my neighbour and take his things?

Deuteronomy 2:33-34
King James Version (KJV)
33And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There are many moral codes that could have, or did, evolve simply from observing the effects of an act. But what formulated the feeling that it was either right or wrong?

Consequences, and you'll note that the consequences are often defined in relative terms, such as, it's okay to thump a guy from another tribe or clan and take his stuff, but it's not okay to do it to members of your own, you'll be punished for that by other members, which it occurs to me is a pretty fair summary of human civilization. It's perfectly clear from the OT, for instance, that the injunction, "Thou shalt not kill" delivered to the Israelites applied only to other Israelites. After receiving it they went on a long campaign of invasion and slaughter abetted by their mass murdering, ethnic cleansing deity.

We evolved as social animals so rules for getting along with each other in groups, with all our competing individual needs, wants, and interests, had to evolve along with us or we wouldn't have survived this long, but we still distinguish different rules for the in group, our own tribe, clan, religion, colour, whatever, and out groups, everybody who's of a different tribe, clan, etc. I think it's a measure of improving civilization that the in groups are getting bigger, they're multinational now, but there are still too many competing camps. One is all we need, and in the long term I think all we can afford.